If we say physicist or biologist, what is wrong with call a scientist an evolutionist?

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by RandomPoster, Jul 16, 2018.

  1. RandomPoster
    Offline

    RandomPoster VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2017
    Messages:
    406
    Thanks Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +242
    A scientist who studies Physics is called a Physicist. A scientist who studies Biology is called a Biologist. Why do people take offense when a scientist who studies Evolution is called an Evolutionist? Is the term supposed to be derisive? By the way, I have no problem with the Theory of Evolution and I do not believe in Creationism. I simply do not understand the problem with the term Evolutionist.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. night_son
    Offline

    night_son Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2018
    Messages:
    2,826
    Thanks Received:
    781
    Trophy Points:
    335
    Location:
    The Full Moon
    Ratings:
    +3,324
    Perhaps it is a matter of Phonics and association by way of misrecognized etymological origin? As a believer, the word evolutionist sparks no offense on first glance, although revolutionary and revisionist do, I must admit, flit through the mental vaults on the heals of its reading. Perhaps others draw the same, incorrect connections?

    I do not believe the term is derisive, without further research, but perhaps it could be inflammatory to those who do not wish to acknowledge evolution?
     
  3. Asclepias
    Offline

    Asclepias Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2013
    Messages:
    90,587
    Thanks Received:
    7,935
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Breathing rarified air.
    Ratings:
    +31,468
    The correct term is evolutionary biologist. Evolutionary biology is a subset of biology Biology is a very general term. There are wildlife biologist, marine biologist etc etc.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  4. Wuwei
    Offline

    Wuwei Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2015
    Messages:
    2,837
    Thanks Received:
    402
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +1,428
    The subfield is an adjective modifying the major field as Asclepias says.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Fort Fun Indiana
    Offline

    Fort Fun Indiana Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2017
    Messages:
    16,852
    Thanks Received:
    1,198
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +8,057
    Nothing is wrong with it. The term scientists use is "evolutionary biologist", as biology is such a diverse field.
     
  6. abu afak
    Offline

    abu afak ALLAH SNACKBAR!

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2006
    Messages:
    2,180
    Thanks Received:
    532
    Trophy Points:
    250
    Ratings:
    +1,577
    The term is Idiotoic.
    It seeks to make the FACT of evolution an "ism"/a mere belief.. like creationIST.

    You can call me a "Gravitationalist" too, but it is similarly Idiotic.
    Both Evo and gravity are theories and Facts.
    `
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2018
  7. RandomPoster
    Offline

    RandomPoster VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2017
    Messages:
    406
    Thanks Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +242
    Is the term Physicist seeking to make the facts of Physics a mere belief? Again, I don't believe in the fairy tale of Creationism and I have no problem with the Theory of Evolution. I am not a scientist. My understanding, as flawed as it may be, is that very few theories in science are elevated to the status of a Scientific Law. This suggests to me that to dismiss every single aspect of Science that is not considered worthy of the status of a law is what should be deemed idiotic. What I'm trying to say is that I find it hard to believe that everything in Science needs to be compared to Newton's Universal Law of Gravition and I find it hard to believe that anything that can not be confirmed to THAT extent should be dismissed as "merely a Theory".

    In short, I see Evolutionary Theory as by far the best theory the human race has put forward in terms of explaining our origins. However, even though I certainly do not dismiss the diligent work of all the brilliant scientists that have contributed to it, I see it as something that is difficult to confirm as fact and I will likely always have difficulty erasing that last bit of uncertainty from my mind even though I admit I have no better theory to suggest.
     

Share This Page