Is it okay for Christians to post here?

[Pete]

How else would I refer to such people?

Sane.

This term is almost never used by people who accept evolution actually I've talked to several biologists and they say it's a idiotic term as well.

Like I said, you wouldn't call someone a gravitiationalist, atomicist or lable people just because they accept a theory.

Ouch! That's not very accurate in my opinion. Your biologist friends told you something quite misleading. As I said, the most well-known and most knowledgeable people in evolution is Ernst Mayr and he uses the term himself, in section headings even. I bet the term is used by others such as Stephen Gould, Richard Dawkins, and Paul Davies.

The terms chemistryist, geologyist, physicsist, biologyist all sound too weird to pronounce. That's why the terms are written otherwise. However the term evolutionist doesn't sound weird at all. What do you believe the analogous term for one who studies evolution should be? Many sciences have terms for the main sciences as well as the subsciences. That's why the term relativist is used so often. Its just not used in a relativity text. I have heard a term similar to gravitationist but I'm not too sure what it was (I forgot). But I know a very well known gravity expert called Robert Forward who referred to himself as such.

If you want to refrain from using it I don't see the problem with that. But please don't try to correct me regarding this since I'm correct in using it, I like the term, and I plan on using it, regardless of what your biologist acquantences say. I'm sure that there will be plenty of things for you to complain about in my posts in the future. This just isn't one of them.

I took the liberty of doing a web search on this term and found it used in some interesting places

http://richarddawkins.net/article,453,Th...rd-Dawkins
http://www.richarddawkins.com/
http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/speakout/gould.html
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/darwin/...awkins.htm

More obvious examples provided upon request.

Pete

---

Do you recall they actually put the word "Doh" - as used by Homer Simpson - in the Oxford English Dictionary? Yes, dictionary definitions are limited and should not be used as the definitive endpoint for your semantics.

We may not like the words that have been created but they become legitimate words when they are clearly defined in a dictionary. And this has nothing to do with semantics by any strech of the imagination. Its very well known term that is widely used. Whoever claims otherwise is simply wrong!