ond_magiker

I guess it's also a matter of practicality. 'Evolutionists' is simpler than 'those who accept evolution'.

And there seems to be some misinformed people who thinks there's a religion called Evolutionism, whose believers are called Evolutionists.

Harry Bosch

Mike: I posted to the following in response to a new guy throwing around the evolutionist word:

Mike: I posted this a couple weeks ago:

Phil: I always laugh when I hear the name: evolutionists!! Do you call an astronomer a "Big Bangist"??! Can I go off post for a minute? (I'll try to answer your question later). I noticed that you are a physics student. Very good. I love physics, but I'm only an amateur. Would you agree with me that Einstein's theory of gravity best explains the nature of gravity? Would you agree with me that the overriding evidence (including evidence just released today) demonstrates his theory is the most accurate? What would you say to me if I said that the absence of gravity is disorder, (people banging into seagulls, rocks flying in the air and etc.) gravity breeds order, therefore gravity must be caused by Aliens who prefer order?? I assume that you would quickly set me straight, and demonstrate the evidence supporting Einstein's theory and the lack of evidence supporting Alien intervention. If this is so, why do you accept evidence in physics, but not in evolution? Do you only accept evidence if it doesn't conflict with your biblical beliefs?

I think that its acceptable to call one who believes in creation a "Creationist", because its a belief system. However, evolution is based on the best scientific evidence that is available. Future evidence could easily disqualify evolution. Creation science has remained constant for 2,000 years, despite all of the evidence accumulated.

Smakman

Well, aren't you then pretty much stating you have to believe the theory of evolution to be true in order to be a scientist? I am sure there are scientists who don't subscribe to the theory.

Harry Bosch

You need to erase belief from your databanks for a second. It’s fine to believe that the moon is made of cheese - however the evidence points to a different hypothesis. It’s a simple fact that the majority of the evidence points towards evolution. A scientist needs to look at the available evidence, test it, determine if it can stand up to peer review and scrutiny. A scientists' belief should not enter into the equation. Here's the difference: a scientist should come up with the same scientific result when he is trying to determine our orgins whether he's an American, African, or an Asian. However, people's beliefs are radically different depending upon their culture and upbringing. The typical American has much diffent beliefs than a typical Asian. You probably assume that your creation story is the same. It is not. There are many different creation stories, dependent upon where one is from - it is not based on the facts.

Smakman

But evidence is not the same as proof, so one would have to make some assumptions along the way, correct? And if the testing of one scientist yields different results that that of another scientist, one of them must be wrong, correct? Yet if both believe they are correct, the argument ensues. How can you eliminate belief from the equation? There are plenty of arguements going on in the scientific community aren't there? I am sure that each side believes his argument is the correct one.

Harry Bosch

Well, I am not a scientist – just a humble banker (so others following this debate please feel free to correct me). {I’m also hamstrung with integrity and I will not copy and paste from other web sites that I agree with.} The theory of evolution has not been proven. However, the vast majority of the evidence supports the theory of evolution. There is no positive evidence for creation. So, a logical person should conclude that the theory of evolution is the most correct theory.

Yes, scientists are people too, and their beliefs can cloud their judgment. In the 1930’s and 40’s astronomers were divided into believing the big bang theory verses “steady state�. Over the years, the vast accumulation of evidence has greatly supported big bang {background radiation, metal distribution, universal lack of helium, and etc}. Many scientists were forced to change their “beliefs� as the evidence came forward. The point is that their “beliefs� did not blind their judgment of the evidence.

PoodleLovinPessimist

I would disagree with you there. I don't think you can agree that evolution (in some form) is not true and still be a scientist, any more than you can agree that Jesus is not divine (in some form) and still be a christian.

PoodleLovinPessimist

And scientific theories are not mathematical theorems.

What you're calling "assumptions" are (I think) scientific theories, and they stand or fall in accordance with the evidence.

What specifically do you mean by "testing"? Do you mean the outcome of experiments? Or do you mean the nature of the theories each proposes to explain the evidence?

Eliminate belief? Why would you want to eliminate belief? How can you eliminate belief without killing yourself? Do you mean eliminate "faith"?

Of course they do. Why shouldn't they? :huh:

Smakman

[QUOTE=PoodleLovinPessimist]
Eliminate belief? Why would you want to eliminate belief? How can you eliminate belief without killing yourself? Do you mean eliminate "faith"?[QUOTE]

Well, Stinger said to eliminate belief. Theory is not fact, but if you think the theory is correct, that does equate to faith of a sort doesn't it?

Nice Squirrel

Just a quick note. Scientists such as chemists, electrical and mechanical engineers, and mathematicians need not have to believe in evolution in order to work in their fields effectively. However the theory of evolution is of paramount importance for the life sciences and most social sciences. Evolutionary changes are all around us and someone who does not understand evolution will be severely handicapped in their field. Especially someone dealing with biology. Evolution is a process of life. Like gravity is a property of our universe. Period. If you don't believe it. Show us how the mountains of evidence for it is wrong. If it is wrong it shouldn't be that hard to expose us as frauds.