MSNBC uses the term "evolutionist"

Hi, Hooah. The title of a Newsweek article was "The Angry Evolutionist" (Which, if we are to believe Newsweek's website, was actually written by Dawkins himself, though I don't know if he had a say in the title).The article you linked to is titled "The Not-So-Angry Evolutionist": which is just a play off the Newsweek article. It's a gimmick that's supposed to draw in an audience that's familiar with the Newsweek article.-----In all honesty, I'm not sure the label "evolutionist" really offends me: I mean, take it as granted that I would prefer to be labeled a "scientist" or "entomologist," but there are worse things to be labeled than "evolutionist."But then, evolution doesn't offend most of the people I spend my time around (and it doesn't often come up around those whom it does offend), so maybe my experience isn't the same as yours. I could see how it would be a more sensitive issue in different social circles.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Allow me to clear a few things up by comparing this with something else more obvious.Gay people will tell you that they describe themselves as gay and that they don't feel offended when someone describes them as gay. And yet, often time homophobes will use the word gay as a way to put down people. Homophobes relate the word gay to evil and they, in their infinitely short-sighted minds, believe that everyone else also associate the word gay with evil.Homophobe: You gay?
Gay person: Yes, I am.
Homophobe: I'm sorry.
Gay person: Huh?The same can relatively be said about the word evolutionist. Dawkins use the word to describe himself very regularly. But since creationists have gotten used to associating the word with evil, they try to use the word in a condescending way, not realizing that the rest of us don't think it's condescending.Creationist: You an evilutionist?
Evolutionist: Yes, I am.
Creationist: I'm sorry.
Evolutionist: Huh?Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

caffeine writes:

quote:

---

Any dispute which becomes politically polarised has people arguing for both sides more out of a sense of community than any grasp of the debate's details.

---

But this falls for the creationist tactice of trying to make it look like there is controversy. Not all questions have two sides.A person's right to an opinion does not make it a valid one.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

There is no controversy in scientific circles over evolution, simply because it's an incredibly well supported theory. However, there is a controversy in much of the popular debate over evolution in some places - such as parts of the southern US.The fact that evolution is accepted scientific fact and that some people's opinions are in conflict with fact doesn't mean there is no pubic controversy - the existence of this forum kind of suggests that there is. And the fact that someone concurs with the scientific consensus doesn't mean there's any rational basis for their beliefs. It's not only religious fundamentalists who accept the dictates of authority without question, and it's not only them who will argue vehemently about a subject they're deeply ignorant of.It's irrelevant whether or not a question has two sides. What matters is whether it can be presented as a battle between two sides, and whether we can tie it in with identities people already ascrobe to (liberal/conservative, Christian/atheist etc.)