Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Killer Mike · 10-28-2004, 09:38 AM

Im just wondering why those who accept evolution are called "evolutionists"? I mean if someone takes a chemistry class and then accepts there are atoms they are not called an "atomist". Is evolution not like any discovery in science? :huh: Just an observation

PoodleLovinPessimist · 10-28-2004, 10:43 AM

Lacking any actual argument, science, logic, common sense or ordinary decency, creationists must turn to propaganda to have anything at all to say. The first rule of propaganda is to give your opponent a ridiculous and misinformative label, and you must keep repeating it to make it stick.

And besides, "evolutionists" can be quickly turned into evilutionists. Evol/Evil, get it?

A laugh a minute these creationists.

Toto · 10-28-2004, 10:55 AM

No BCH topics here - perhaps the folks in the Evolution-Creationism forum know the history of the term.

RBH · 10-28-2004, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killer Mike

Im just wondering why those who accept evolution are called "evolutionists"? I mean if someone takes a chemistry class and then accepts there are atoms they are not called an "atomist". Is evolution not like any discovery in science? :huh: Just an observation

I don't know the full history, but as I recall, Ernst Mayr, in What Evolution Is, used the term "evolutionist" to refer to himself and his peers without blushing.

RBH

Jet Black · 10-28-2004, 11:12 AM

the suffix ~ist usually demotes someone who does something. evolutionists are the people who work on, and I suppose , accept evolution. it is a tecnically correct label.

PoodleLovinPessimist · 10-28-2004, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jet Black

the suffix ~ist usually demotes someone who does something. evolutionists are the people who work on, and I suppose , accept evolution. it is a tecnically correct label.

The correct term is "scientist". But the creationists don't want to position themselves as anti-science.

Deacon Doubtmonger · 10-28-2004, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoodleLovinPessimist

Lacking any actual argument, science, logic, common sense or ordinary decency, creationists must turn to propaganda to have anything at all to say. The first rule of propaganda is to give your opponent a ridiculous and misinformative label, and you must keep repeating it to make it stick.

And besides, "evolutionists" can be quickly turned into evilutionists. Evol/Evil, get it?

A laugh a minute these creationists.

Well, if we atheists didn't think ad hominem was dirty pool, we could do the same thing:

Cre(tin)ationist
Cre(ep)ationist :Cheeky:

And even if there were no hideous label, any given label can be made so via tone of voice, facial expression, etc. Just listen to any preacher getting overwrought every time he says "atheist."

Smakman · 10-28-2004, 05:07 PM

I seems to me that this forum is populated by a lot of intelligent and well educated people. I don't really see the need to stoop to insults and name games. Instead of evolutionists, how about evalutionaries? :huh:

PoodleLovinPessimist · 10-28-2004, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smakman

I seems to me that this forum is populated by a lot of intelligent and well educated people. I don't really see the need to stoop to insults and name games. Instead of evolutionists, how about evalutionaries? :huh:

How about "scientists".

Kydka · 10-28-2004, 10:22 PM

Scientists is good but perhaps to broad... I think biologist is better. The theory of evolution is pivotal to biology like Newton's laws are/have been/were to physics. Biologists certainly are scientists of course! Mind you, most sciences interrelate. Either scientist or biologist is a heck of a lot better than evolutionist.

10-28-2004, 09:38 AM	#1
Killer Mike Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,033	WHY THE RHETORIC OF "EVOLUTIONIST"?' (Merged) Im just wondering why those who accept evolution are called "evolutionists"? I mean if someone takes a chemistry class and then accepts there are atoms they are not called an "atomist". Is evolution not like any discovery in science? :huh: Just an observation

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-28-2004, 10:43 AM	#2
PoodleLovinPessimist Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: USA Posts: 5,826	Lacking any actual argument, science, logic, common sense or ordinary decency, creationists must turn to propaganda to have anything at all to say. The first rule of propaganda is to give your opponent a ridiculous and misinformative label, and you must keep repeating it to make it stick. And besides, "evolutionists" can be quickly turned into evilutionists. Evol/Evil, get it? A laugh a minute these creationists.

10-28-2004, 10:55 AM	#3
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	No BCH topics here - perhaps the folks in the Evolution-Creationism forum know the history of the term.

10-28-2004, 11:12 AM	#5
Jet Black Contributor Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: (GSV) Lasting Damage Posts: 10,734	the suffix ~ist usually demotes someone who does something. evolutionists are the people who work on, and I suppose , accept evolution. it is a tecnically correct label.

10-28-2004, 05:07 PM	#8
Smakman Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: MO Posts: 173	I seems to me that this forum is populated by a lot of intelligent and well educated people. I don't really see the need to stoop to insults and name games. Instead of evolutionists, how about evalutionaries? :huh:

10-28-2004, 10:22 PM	#10
Kydka Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 269	Scientists is good but perhaps to broad... I think biologist is better. The theory of evolution is pivotal to biology like Newton's laws are/have been/were to physics. Biologists certainly are scientists of course! Mind you, most sciences interrelate. Either scientist or biologist is a heck of a lot better than evolutionist.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.