Darwinists? and other names for "evos"

Perhaps if you think about your own statement above you'll see the problem with calling all supporters of evolution "Darwinists", and then expecting them all to agree based on your labeling of them as such.If anything, you should see that your statement shows that evolutionary science is not dogmatic, nor does it simply worship the work of Darwin. Instead, scientists base their views on evidence, and sometimes multiple intrepretations can come out of the same evidence.Again, assigning an ideological label to scientists, such as "Darwinist", is taken as offensive because science is based on evidence, not ideology.

No they don't. It seems you are again approaching science with dogmatic labels, then simply stating as fact your opinion as to what all scientists believe."Abiogenesis" is the theory dealing with the arisal of life from non-life ("spontaneous generation" is a different theory and has been falsified). Also, the Theory of Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the Theory of Abiogenesis, so whether or not someone supports Evolution says nothing of their beliefs regarding Abiogenesis. Again, a big fat "NO".Science deals almost solely with "theory" - "facts" and "truth" and "proven" are terms often misleadingly applied to theories.So scientists may support a theory or not, or they may feel a specific theory is the best given the evidence. Science proceeds by providing falsifying or confirming evidence to refute or support a theory. In this sense, a theory can never be proven as true - even the theory of gravity, as you example.Thus, if someone says to you "the Theory of Evolution is true", or "the Theory of Abiogenesis is fact", that person is not a genuine scientist. (And if you have a source telling you that scientists claim these things, it is probably Creationist propaganda...)

How many "professional Evolutionists" have you met?How did you specifically discern that they were "dogmatic believer[s] in evolution" rather than logical individuals who had weighed the scientific evidence?

I was actually trying to bring it back on topic with that post; a lot of jeafl's comments regarding science and scientists are based on ideological assumptions that stem from ideological labels such as "Darwinist", or vice versa.I'll try to be more clear and careful, though...

You are obviously missing my point, perhaps entirely.The assigning of a label, no matter what that label is, to a field of scientists does not mean that all scientists in that field will agree.Science isn't like joining a club where everyone agrees to agree - there is constant controversy, testing of theories, and revising of theories. Your addition of a dogmatic label does not change this reality.Apparently you don't see the contradiction in your own statements:
- Darwinists are purely dogmatic.
- Many Darwinists disagree.If evolutionary scientists were really simply a dogmatic, faith-based group, why would they ever disagree on major points as you bring up?The answer is simple, because your "Darwinists" don't exist, but rather scientists who make up their own minds regarding theories and evidence.

Hey jeafl-I won't reply to your points here due to topic restrictions. I'll just state (on-topic) that you clearly have some basic misconceptions regarding science, and that these misconceptions seem to lead to your use of ideological labels for scientists.Here are two recent threads regarding Miller and Abiogenesis if you are interested; I'll try to respond to you there if the posts are on-topic: The lies behind the Miller experimentAbiogenesis by the Numbers

You've answered your own question again: non-dogmatic scientists do not want dogmatic Creationism taught as science.Again this is veering off-topic; I'll suggest one of the many, many threads in the entire topic devoted to: Education and Creation/Evolution

It doesn't, and I didn't say it did. Creationism is not testable by science because it involves the supernatural, but again, we've moved off-topic.And again, there are many, many threads on these issues in the forum, "Is it Science?", perhaps try: Can science support creationism?Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad ScienceI'll look for your further arguments in other threads.