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

[RandomPoster]

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.

 

[night_son]

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.

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?

 

[Asclepias]

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.

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.

 

[Wuwei]

The subfield is an adjective modifying the major field as Asclepias says.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

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?

Nothing is wrong with it. The term scientists use is "evolutionary biologist", as biology is such a diverse field.

 

[abu afak]

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.

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.
`

 

[RandomPoster]

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.

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.
`

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.