Pete Posted January 22, 2009 Author Posted January 22, 2009 Personally' date=' I know a lot of evolutionary biologists, and I don't know any who use the term "evolutionist". [/quote'] Are you implying that someone in this thread asserted that all evolution scientists use the term? If so then I can't find it. I know that I’d never make such an unfounded claim. I seriously doubt that anyone posting in this thread would either. It seems to me that you’re making argument in support of iNow’s (erroneous) claim that no evolutionary scientist uses the term. I'm sure that you know that's not a logical conclusion. It’s quite possible that there are those who use it that you've never met or seen them use in print. I’ve proven above that this is not true. Consider an analogous example: I myself have no immediate recollection of a physicist, who specialize in relativity, using the term relativist. I wouldn’t conclude from this that there are no physicists who specialize in relativity who don't use it. Especially since I recall some of them doing so. Not knowing of and not having heard of something is an not a good reason to assume that its not used. I once made such a mistake of that nature (Once!). Someone once told me that their degree was in Gravitational Physics . I never heard of a degree which was called Gravitational Physics, so I immediately claimed he was wrong. The usual ad hominem attack followed. After the normal rounds of insults I decided to search the web to see if I could find an example of it. To my surprise I did find a web site in which someone wrote that this person earned a Ph.D. in Gravitational Physics. I was amazed. The most amazing part was that I knew of this person and he’s an expert in the field. I made sure I never made that error in logic again. If anyone is curious, the person I found with this degree was none other than the well-known physicist Dr. Robert L. Forward! Regardless of validity, definitions or anything else, the term has been poisoned by the creationists, and nobody uses it. … and nobody uses it. I already provided one example of a person who uses it in my posts above. Even the laymen at the website who insulted me for using it told me that Richard Dawkins himself uses the term in books on evolution. I gave an example from Ernst Mayr’s book in the first post in this. Did you not see it or did you ignore it? DH noticed this as evidenced by his comment above, i.e. As pmb noted, several biologists do use the word evolutionist to describe themselves. Mr Skeptic asked Mokele the following question What then would you call someone who accepts the theory of evolution? Mokele responded A rational' date=' thinking human being? [/quote'] It appears that Mokele didn't understand the reason why Mr Skeptic ask the question. The context in which the question was asked made it clear that Mr Skeptic was inquiring of Mokele what he'd use as a synonym for evolutionist that he'd prefer to use and not object to. He was not asking for your opinion of such a person. I'm not really sure what the point of this thread is. Huh? I find that hard to believe' date=' unless of course, you didn’t read the opening post Please read it again; Can someone, perhaps someone well versed in psychology, shed some light on why some people get so pissed off by such a universally used term like "evolutionist"? I recently explained that I got a reasonable answer to my question If some evolution-layman (evolution experts don't see to have this problem) perceive the use of the term evolutionist as being used to describe someone who accepts evolution on faith only then I can understand the anger. That seems to be iNow and Phi_for all's objection. That would seem to explain the psychological reason behind all this. Since those comments were quite clear and posted for all to view then I'm confused by your comment I'm not really sure what the point of this thread is. Now that I’ve once again explained the purpose of this thread do you understand now? The term exists' date=' could be used, but isn't for a variety of reasons which are unlikely to change anytime soon. [/quote'] As I explained above to iNow, but isn't is a false statement. And I've demonstrated that its false. Why did you ignore the proof given to you? If you discard it as no proof at all then why didn’t you make an attempt to back up your claim? Given that there's nothing beneficial about this term over the current terminology, I fail to see the issue. And what is this current terminology that you're referring to? Please provide an example from either the scholarly literature or layman’s literature on evolution to substantiate your claim. Your argument is irrelevant since you're basing it on your personal opinion that there's nothing beneficial about it. Others who use it (such as some evolution scientists) obviously do believe that it’s beneficial for those instances in which they use it. As DH already explained, it is a simpler and "sleeker" term to use than evolution scientist or what have you. As DH has also eloquently pointed out there are there are physicists, chemists, physicists, biologists, geologists, etc. I'm not really sure what the point of this thread is. The term exists' date=' could be used, but isn't for a variety of reasons which are unlikely to change anytime soon. Given that there's nothing beneficial about this term over the current terminology, I fail to see the issue. [/quote'] I'm not really sure what the point of this thread is. Don’t you mean that you’re not sure what the point of purpose of this thread is. If so then I don’t see why you don’t know the purpose of it. The opening post explained the purpose, i.e. Can someone, perhaps someone well versed in psychology, shed some light on why some people get so pissed off by such a universally used term like "evolutionist"? And in a broad sense I even came to have my questioned answered. Religious people can be rational (to a point), but creationists cannot be. That is quite untrue. I myself am a creationist and an evolutionist. Such a position is based on theistic evolution. See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution. The Roman Catholic Church accepts the theory of evolution. I copied a page out of a text on evolution, which states In 1996, for example, Pope John Paul II acknowledged that Darwin evolution was a firmly established scientific result and stated that accepting Darwinism was compatible with traditional understanding of God. The book In the Beginning … Biblical Creation and Science by Nathan Aviezer is an excellent example of an attempt of establishing the compatibility of Genesis with modern science. However' date=' since our thought process is dependent upon labels, … [/quote'] That is an invalid assertion. Use of terms like Biologist, Chemist, Physicist, Relativist, etc. don’t make our thought process is dependent upon labels. There is no basis for such an assertion. Definitions of evolutionist on the Web: As commonly used' date=' a person who believes that all life on earth came from slowly changing natural processes operating over billions of years. http://www.ccel.us/gange.glossary.html [/quote'] Awesome reference my good man! And again a wrong depiction of evolution. *sigh* Making a statement in that manner is not useful to anyone. Pmb' date=' if you can bring yourself to respond to this post,… [/quote'] What’s with the attitude Phi? I respond to all posts in which the poster is not being rude, employing very poor arguments and not posted by someone who is on my ignore list. I urge you to point out where you think I have deleted anything. Thank you for pointing that out Phi. I made a mistake. I wrote a post and then posted it. When I came back later I looked for the post it was gone. Since you are a moderator I assumed that you deleted it. In another science forum I used to go to that was the way moderators sometimes did things. I may have confused their actions with yours (or that forum with this one). I humbly apologize for making an invalid accusation. Frankly, I am baffled by your hostility. The only comment in this thread which could possibly be taken as hostile is my comment Especially before Phi comes back and again deletes important content I now see that I posted that response with an invalid perception in mind. I truly did think you deleted an important post of mind. Is this typical of your reactions at that other forum you mentioned? This is an example of a comment that I don’t respond to for the reason described above. In this case its basically an ad hominem attack. Shame on you.
Sayonara Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Are you implying that someone in this thread asserted that all evolution scientists use the term? If so then I can't find it. I know that I’d never make such an unfounded claim. I seriously doubt that anyone posting in this thread would either. It seems to me that you’re making argument in support of iNow’s (erroneous) claim that no evolutionary scientist uses the term. I'm sure that you know that's not a logical conclusion. It’s quite possible that there are those who use it that you've never met or seen them use in print. I’ve proven above that this is not true. For ****'s sake Pmb, stop being so effing pedantic and deliberately obtuse. Mokele is saying that because of the lack of people he knows using the term "evolutionist", amongst the population where you say it occurs, the rate of its occurrence must be so low as to make the claim "evolutionary scientists call themselves evolutionists too" spurious at best. You yourself named just a couple of the hundreds of thousands who currently exist. If Brian Greene and Lee Smolin published pop-sci books in which they call their colleagues Fizzycysts, we would not make the claim that this is what physicists call themselves. It is insufficient. The only reason you are still arguing this is because you are making people's statements out to be absolutist when they are actually guilty of nothing more than lazy phrasing. So again, stop being so pedantic. Do you go up to people in clothes stores and correct them when you hear them saying "darling, nobody wears those any more"? No, of course not. Because you understand their particular use of the word "nobody".
Pete Posted January 22, 2009 Author Posted January 22, 2009 Well that was a very childish response. Please stop being so arrogant and closed minded and also please stop posting ad hominem attacks.
Sayonara Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Well that was a very childish response. Please stop being so arrogant and closed minded and also please stop posting ad hominem attacks. You have responded to the first line only, which means you either cannot or will not reply to the important part of the post. Respond to the pertinent content please, or don't respond at all. Also explain how I am being "arrogant" by getting this thread under control, which is one of my duties, and explain how I am being "closed minded" by pointing out the error of your ways. Finally I suggest that you not fling around the term "ad hominem attacks" like it is the ultimate defence against being spoken to in straight terms. Because it isn't.
Phi for All Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Pmb' date=' if you can bring yourself to respond to this post,… [/quote'] What’s with the attitude Phi? I respond to all posts in which the poster is not being rude, employing very poor arguments and not posted by someone who is on my ignore list. My response was in reference to a previous statement you made:And I find yours to be the same and then some. You've applied poor reasoning to your arguements and have backpeddeled when you made mistaks. For that reason I won't be reading or responding any of your posts in the future. Its a darn shame I can't put you on my ignore list. I had said that I found your argument that, because I referred to "people" that I meant "all people", to be ludicrous. Just that one argument. Your response here seemed to include *all* my arguments as ludicrous and poorly reasoned, without ever having detailed why they were so. I was merely hoping you would respond because earlier you claimed you wouldn't. Thank you for pointing that out Phi. I made a mistake. I wrote a post and then posted it. When I came back later I looked for the post it was gone. Since you are a moderator I assumed that you deleted it. In another science forum I used to go to that was the way moderators sometimes did things. I may have confused their actions with yours (or that forum with this one). I humbly apologize for making an invalid accusation.Apology accepted. The only comment in this thread which could possibly be taken as hostile is my comment Especially before Phi comes back and again deletes important content I'm sure you meant the only comment which could possibly be taken as hostile *besides* the one I referenced above about *all* my arguments being ludicrous and poorly reasoned and wanting to ignore me. Is this typical of your reactions at that other forum you mentioned?[/quote'] This is an example of a comment that I don’t respond to for the reason described above. In this case its basically an ad hominem attack. Shame on you. No' date=' it's an example of me trying to get at the root of why you had so many problems on that other forum, which you introduced as part of your OP. It was a question, not an attack. And your answer here seems to show a hypersensitivity to disagreement which I suspected was part of the problem you had there, and are obviously experiencing here as well. Is it OK to say that you seem hypersensitive when someone disagrees with you? Do you perceive that as an [i']ad hominem[/i]? You originally asked for some psychological input into your original question, and this thread was placed here in Psychiatry and Psychology purposely, was it not? Without pointing fingers or unintentionally making any ad hominem attacks, I would suggest to all participating members in this thread that hypersensitivity to disagreement might also be a factor in why evolution proponents and creationism advocates get angry with the labels thrust upon them. From my pov, I think the creationism advocates are upholding their sacred faith and the evolution proponents are upholding scientific method. Both sides can be touchy about what they consider the cornerstones of what they hold to be true.
iNow Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Are you implying that someone in this thread asserted that all evolution scientists use the term? If so then I can't find it. I know that I’d never make such an unfounded claim. I seriously doubt that anyone posting in this thread would either. It seems to me that you’re making argument in support of iNow’s (erroneous) claim that no evolutionary scientist uses the term. I'm sure that you know that's not a logical conclusion. It appears that in your self-righteous fury and baffling desire for a flame war over a word (which has been clearly demonstrated to not be used by many people and for reasons self-evident in this thread) that you missed post #24. The only comment in this thread which could possibly be taken as hostile is my comment: If you truly believe this, friend, then I suggest this is part of the problem you've been experiencing... that it has less to do with the word evolutionist or belief, and more to do with your approach to internet forum communications.
Pete Posted January 22, 2009 Author Posted January 22, 2009 You have responded to the first line only, That's correct. I did so for a very good reason. I read your's and Phi's responses and decided that to respond would only keep this thread off track, especiallly since all I see in those responses are comments based on false assumptions and thus have no real substance to them and I won't respond to assertions that were made on false impressions of what you thought my intent was and the like However, if you're truly curious and want me to actually explain why then I'll do so in PM. But that means that only you can read it and not the entire board. Are you so sure that's what you'd want? Nobody here whom I have a great deal of respect for, such as Mr Skeptic and D H, has made such baseless accusations. That's because they're very intelligent people.
iNow Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 However, if you're truly curious and want me to actually explain why then I'll do so in PM. But that means that only you can read it and not the entire board. Are you so sure that's what you'd want? Nobody here whom I have a great deal of respect for, such as Mr Skeptic and D H, has made such baseless accusations. That's because they're very intelligent people. And I bet DH won't even slap you for using an enthymeme.
Mr Skeptic Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Nobody here whom I have a great deal of respect for, such as Mr Skeptic and D H, has made such baseless accusations. That's because they're very intelligent people. Just don't expect either of us to defend you for being overly pedantic. Part of the reason that you are getting negative reactions is yourself. I hope you don't lose any of your respect for my saying so. Whatever you have against Phi for all, for example, doesn't seem worth the trouble.
Mokele Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Why is this topic even still open? Pmb asked a question: Why do people dislike the term "evolutionist"? That question has been given *several* answers: 1) It implies equivalence of status of the ideas 2) It implies that evolution is based on 'faith' 3) It has not been extensively used by the scientific community, thus has no grounding 4) It originated and is used as a label (often derrogatory/inflamatory) primarily by creationists when talking about those who accept evolution. IMHO, the 4th is the primary reason - why should we adopt a label that was invented and applied by another group? Especially when said label is often used in a derogatory way? Is there seriously anything else to say? Because IMHO, the question has been thoroughly and adequately answered, and everything else is OT. Mokele
Pete Posted January 22, 2009 Author Posted January 22, 2009 I hope you don't lose any of your respect for my saying so. No. Of course not. I want to make it clear that I based my opinion of yours and D H's intelligence' date=' not on whether you like me personally or not, but on the quality of the way that you and he present your arguements. It shows that you're both very good at logic and critical thinking. I can certainly appreciate the intelligence of people who don't like me. Its not like I was trying to suck up to you either of you. Its not in my nature and I suck at it. That's one of the things I hated when I was in the military, i.e. the often required [i']sucking up to officers.[/i]. I didn't respond to your comment on regarding being pedantic since nobody really wants to discuss it and discussing/commenting on that accusation would side track this thread more than it has already. Therefore please don't assume that I'm ignoring you, okay?
D H Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Pmb asked a question: Why do people dislike the term "evolutionist"? Some of you answered the question well. Some did not. None of you acknowledged that several extremely well-regarded evolutionary biologists call themselves evolutionists. This thread went ballistic in part because of some rather intolerant responses. Re-read the OP. It wasn't particularly pedantic. Re-read post #3. That's where things started going downhill. Pmb happened to hit a sore spot. Some of you are overly sensitive, but with justification. Pmb, call yourself an evolutionist and do so with pride. Dawkins and Mayr do so, and that is some very well-respected company. Do not however call others who side with you evolutionists. As you have seen, some (particularly in the US, where people who ascribe to evolution as a scientific explanation are confronted by a ridiculously large fraction of the population who reject reality) take extreme umbrage at the term.
Pete Posted January 22, 2009 Author Posted January 22, 2009 Some of you answered the question well. Some did not. None of you acknowledged that several extremely well-regarded evolutionary biologists call themselves evolutionists. This thread went ballistic in part because of some rather intolerant responses. Re-read the OP. It wasn't particularly pedantic. Re-read post #3. That's where things started going downhill. Since iNow is on my ignore list and I never read that post. I wonder if that played some role in the heat that followed.
Klaynos Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 This thread is now on 24 Hour Suicide Watch. The thread starter has failed or is failing to support their position, has not managed the thread direction in a manner which supports its purpose, or is actively encouraging a disorderly discussion. The thread starter must bring the thread under control in order for the thread to stay open. Alternatively, there are more reportable posts breaching the SFN Rules in this thread than there are non-reportable posts, and all participants are expected to improve their level of input if this thread is to remain open. If the thread does not turn into a productive and rational discussion within 24 hours of this post, then it will be closed without any consideration of the moderation policy.
Pete Posted January 23, 2009 Author Posted January 23, 2009 (edited) The thread starter has failed or is failing to support their position' date=' ... [/quote'] I strongly disagree. I've provided a solid argument for my position and provided exceptionally strong support for it. My position can be summarized by the following statements 1) My "position" is that I started this thread so that I could learn (or come closer to understanding) the reason(s) that such strong negative emotions arise in sometimes when the term evolutionist is used 2) The term evolutionist is defined as a person who either adheres to the theory of evolution or a person who studies evolution. 3) Some people object to the term evolutionist as well as its use, because they see it as a derogatory term. There are several reasons for this (see discussion for details regarding definition of the term believe) 4) Several noted evolutionary biologists use the word evolutionist in some of their writings, as well as to describe themselves. 5) In the same way a person who studies physics is referred to as a physicist, a person who studies evolution is called an evolutionist. 6) The use of the term evolutionist seems to be similar to the use of the term relativist. I.e. its uncommon for an evolutionist to use the term in texts or scientific journals etc. Its not uncommon to see it used in texts written for the general public. 7) The claim the only people who use it are creationists was proven to be wrong. 8) I am satisfied with what I came here to learn. I got my answer. The offense of the term is perhaps similar to how how I'd feel if someone referred to me, being pro-choice, as an abortionist. That may be a bit of an exageration though. 9) The proposition Religious people can be rational (to a point), but creationists cannot be. is wrong. ...has not managed the thread direction in a manner which supports its purpose' date=' or is actively encouraging a disorderly discussion. [/quote'] Since it is impossible for the OP or any participant to control what is being posted in a thread I cannot reasonably be expected to provide direction. When it became clear that it was turning bad I requested that the thread be locked. Contrary to your claim I have not actively encouraged a disorderly discussion. In fact I've done the opposite. I have tried to dissuade participants from going off topic. I refused to respond to certain comments (trolls) by certain posters because to do so would lead to trouble. I even asked people to stop making ad hominem attacks. By the way, for those of you who don't know what an ad hominem attack is then I'll post the definition here. From [b[Practical Logic: An Antidote for Uncritical Thinking[/b] by Soccie and Barry, page 129 The authors use the term fallacious personal attack to refer to ad hominem attack. It is an attack on the arguer rather than the argument. They write A fallacious personal attack is an argument that claims to be a refutation of an opponent's argument when in fact attacks the opponent. The personal attack fallacy comes in many forms, and we'll look at three of them: character assassination, circumstantial, and tu quoque. Example: I had just responded to a comment made by Mokele which I was unsure of its meaning. So I asked him a series of questions for which the answers would lead me to understand what Mokele's point was. Sayonara³[/b]]For ****'s sake Pmb' date=' stop being so effing pedantic and deliberately obtuse. [/quote'] Sayonara³ stated that the reason he posted this insult me (i.e. that I was being deliberately obtuse) was that it was an attempt to get the thread under control. This was clearly an ad hominem attack. because it contained an insult (obtuse = : lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : insensitive , stupid b: difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression). Perhaps Sayonara³ is unaware that calling someone deliberately obtuse can be interpreted as an insult. If he is unaware of that then perhaps he shouldn't be a moderator. In any case I asked that it stop. But what followed was posters denouncing me and my character in one way or another rather than restricting themselves to the subject of this thread. One major reason why this kind of thing happens so often - the person posting personal remarks doesn't know, or perhaps doesn't care, that his remarks are or can be offensive to the person they are targeted at. Its for this reason people should stop talking about a person and instead address the argument and the argument only. The thread starter must bring the thread under control in order for the thread to stay open. [/QUOTe] I cannot control the offending people who post at this forum. Neither can I add them to my ignore list. Its for that reason I asked that this thread be closed. Its turned into a pmb-bashing thread. You can close it if you'd like. Its served the purpose I started if for. If you look at earlier posts you'll see that I posted the following comment I myself urge you to lock this thread. I asked that because I was convinced that this thread as going to take a bad turn. If the thread does not turn into a productive and rational discussion within 24 hours of this post' date=' then it will be closed without any consideration of the moderation policy. [/quote'] Excellent Klaynos. Thank you. Edited January 23, 2009 by Pmb
mooeypoo Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 (edited) I am as much an evolutionist as I am a gravitationalist or a quantum physicalist. The main difference, the way I see it, between "Creationists" and "Evolutionists" is that *USUALLY* - (those two terms are generalizations, which force me to continue generalizing, although knowingly so, so please take it as it is, while including the possibility of exceptions, as I do) - both definitions refer to a single, absolute, point of view. The majority of Creationists that used either term seem to be using an absolute point of view, which seem to generally mean, roughly: Creationist is one that accepts the truth of the biblical creation unquestioningly, and exclusively. That means that any other theory *must* be wrong. And in the eyes of those who *usually* refer to "evolutionists" as such, "evolutionists" see evolution as an absolute truth, accept it without question and therefore all other theories *must* be wrong. The main difference, however, is that scientists who follow the scientific method are, by these above definitions, absolutely *not* evolutionists. Scientific method demands nothingto be accepted *exclusively*, let alone "without question". So what usually irks me about the usage of this term is that instead of using it for people who accept either "view" without question (which is what these two defintions imply) it is usually used to *anyone* who accepts the theory of evolution, regardless of reasons, and regardless of whether or not the person is open for "competing" (if there are any) theories. Above that, I have made a video, long ago, about the use of the word "belief" in science, at least the way I see it. I think it might raise some food for thought, at least: Those are my 2 cents on the matter. I also think the argument went astray here. Definitions can be useful and can be detrimental. Some people like them, some don't, but the general feeling is that a definition is an "absolute", which can be very problematic. I have a friend, for example, whose biggest problems in coming out of the closet, was the definition "Gay". The 'community' expected her to be "proud" of her definition; and society expected her to DEFINE *something*. But what people tend to forget is that some folk don't go "either/or". Some folk don't care, either. Be it in sexuality, belief or general life, definitions are problematic because they imply a definitive absolute, and when arguing or debating, that can result in viewing the other side with an extreme view, rather than trying to find the commond ground. (and isn't reaching a 'common ground' the purpose of a civil debate? it shouldn't end in agreement, but without finding a common ground there is no debate, but rather mutually ignoring/misunderstanding each other's claims). I suggest we drop all definitions about each other in this thread and concentrate on the debate itself. It seems to me we will have much more fruitful results without resorting to ad-hominem attacks, strawman representations and derogatory hints on either side. ~moo Edited January 23, 2009 by mooeypoo
iNow Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 This thread went ballistic in part because of some rather intolerant responses. Re-read the OP. It wasn't particularly pedantic. Re-read post #3. That's where things started going downhill. Since iNow is on my ignore list and I never read that post. I wonder if that played some role in the heat that followed. Ahhh... Heavy is the head which wears the crown, I suppose. I am known to argue with conviction and intensity, and have made a name for myself by posting with both passion and fortitude, so it's only natural that my doing so will ruffle a few feathers once in a while. So it goes.
mooeypoo Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Alright, how 'bout we concentrate on how to bring this discussion back on track rather than dwell in past mistakes? We should debate the definitions and not the person making a claim about the definitions. ~moo
Abdul-Aziz Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 The term "evolutionist" is an ideological, not a scientific construct. It is an obscurantist word used by creationists and other nonscientists to smear their opponents and silence rational dissent. The world of empirical research has no place for ad hominem attacks on others.
Pete Posted January 23, 2009 Author Posted January 23, 2009 Alright, how 'bout we concentrate on how to bring this discussion back on track rather than dwell in past mistakes? We should debate the definitions and not the person making a claim about the definitions. ~moo I originally created this thread to learn more about the negative emotions associated with its usage. It took a bit of a turn to its definition but I guess that was to be expected. But I don't think that there is really much arguement on what it means. When I saw the term in Ernst Mayr's book there was no ambiguity to what it meant: Think of it like this "Study of physics" is to physicist as "Study of evolution" is to evolutionist
iNow Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Why wouldn't they be a biologist? What about those people that accept evolution, but don't study biology or don't actually study evolution either? We've been through this. I accept relativity, but I'm not a relativist. I accept gravity, but I'm not a gravitationalist. I accept germ theory, but I'm not a germ theorist. I accept lots of things, and those things I accept provide no reason for such a label when describing me. What does everyone suggest makes evolution any different, where IT supposedly needs a special label yet the others do not?
Mr Skeptic Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 I think that the OP's question has been fully answered. Here's my summary of what is on-topic: 1) Some people object to the word evolutionist because it can be viewed as saying they accept evolution on faith, hence, an insult. It could also be seen as an insult against all of science, since it would suggest scientists not following the scientific method. 2) Some people object to the word evolutionist because creationists use it as a weapon, so accepting the label compromises their debate position. 3) It seems that many professionals do not use the term evolutionist. I suggest that that is because in the scientific community, evolution is the default position and therefore using the term would be almost redundant (like the phrase "round earther" would be redundant for most people so that it is used mainly by people in the flat earth society, or discussions with them). It is used by some (many???) professionals who talk about evolution to the general public, despite others taking insult at the use. 4) Mokele suggested that we use the label creationist but refuse the label evolutionist, to marginalize the creationists (see post 32). This seems wrong to me, but is probably another reason people object to using the word evolutionist. Unless there is more to this, the OP has been answered about as much as it ever will.
Pete Posted January 23, 2009 Author Posted January 23, 2009 4) Mokele suggested that we use the label creationist but refuse the label evolutionist' date=' to marginalize the creationists (see post 32). This seems wrong to me, but is probably another reason people object to using the word evolutionist. [/quote'] Does that imply that someone will be telling me what words I use in the future, i.e. that someone can tell me if I can use the term evolution or not? I hope not. I had to leave that other forum because of this. I don't want to leave this one for the same reason. Then again I don't talk about evolution that much ... yet.
mooeypoo Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 I originally created this thread to learn more about the negative emotions associated with its usage. It took a bit of a turn to its definition but I guess that was to be expected. But I don't think that there is really much arguement on what it means. When I saw the term in Ernst Mayr's book there was no ambiguity to what it meant: Think of it like this "Study of physics" is to physicist as "Study of evolution" is to evolutionist In that case, shouldn't an evolutionist only be one that studies evolution just like a physicist studies physics? Hence, only evolutionary biologists are "true" evolutionists, according to this. No?
Sayonara Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 That's correct. I did so for a very good reason. I read your's and Phi's responses and decided that to respond would only keep this thread off track, especiallly since all I see in those responses are comments based on false assumptions and thus have no real substance to them and I won't respond to assertions that were made on false impressions of what you thought my intent was and the like You won't avoid moderator or admin action by ignoring it. However, if you're truly curious and want me to actually explain why then I'll do so in PM. But that means that only you can read it and not the entire board. Are you so sure that's what you'd want? Nobody here whom I have a great deal of respect for, such as Mr Skeptic and D H, has made such baseless accusations. That's because they're very intelligent people. False dichotomy. The staff here will get on with their jobs as per our policies regardless of whatever strategy you select. This was clearly an ad hominem attack. because it contained an insult (obtuse = : lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : insensitive , stupid b: difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression). What utter hogwash. An ad hominem is, by definition, an attack against the person. I attacked your behaviour, which is entirely separate and easily modified on your part. I have no intention of validating your frankly overblown accusations by offering a defence or apology of any sort. Perhaps Sayonara³ is unaware that calling someone deliberately obtuse can be interpreted as an insult. If he is unaware of that then perhaps he shouldn't be a moderator. I am not a moderator, I am an administrator. I am one of the four people who share responsibility for this site. I suggest that if you want to remain a contributing member on this site (and it would be a shame if you did not, since you are clearly inquisitive and passionate), then you should probably not as your first act here attempt to throw around weight which you simply do not have. In any case I asked that it stop. But what followed was posters denouncing me and my character in one way or another rather than restricting themselves to the subject of this thread. Any member or guest can verify for themselves - simply by reading the intervening posts - that that is simply not true. You can close it if you'd like. Its served the purpose I started if for. If you look at earlier posts you'll see that I posted the following comment I myself urge you to lock this thread. I asked that because I was convinced that this thread as going to take a bad turn. Have you got a proper answer to the question in the OP? If not, since the thread is on suicide watch, everyone participating has a responsibility to improve the thread. So perhaps there is no need to throw out the baby with the bath water.
Recommended Posts