Is it okay for Christians to post here?

[Demonaura]

The link he provided, is a laugh. If you read it properly, the term evolutionist has one result, which is not listed on the page. It then moves on and defines the word evolution, not evolutionist.

If he really wants to freak out over the proper use of the language, and a single word at that than screw it. We wouldn't be able to understand anything he wrote anyways.

[Edwardo Piet]

Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist but he also has called himself an evolutionist.

When evolutionist means someone who "believes in" evolution that does not automatically imply for no good reason!

I "believe in" evolution but for good reason. Because of the evidence. Belief is perhaps not a good word because it is misleading - and faith is CERTAINLY misleading since its generally used for belief without evidence (which is why Dawkins definites it that way. You wouldn't need to use the word "faith" if you actually had any evidence).

I don't see any problem with the word evolutionist though. Perhaps it makes creationists misunderstand things but it doesn't mean belief in evolution without evidence of course. It doesn't mean faith-based belief in evolution obviously!

And the thing is perhaps when dealing with an opposition its good to create a controversy or "rock the boat".

I dunno but I just don't have a problem with the word evolutionist because:

1. evolutionist may mean someone who believes in evolution,

2. creationist may mean someone who believes in creation,

3. but just because creationists believe in creationism because of faith - belief without any evidence - this does not imply that evolutionists are people who "believe in" evolution as in believing in it for no good reason! Evolutionists I would think usually believe in evolution because of the evidence and because its true not because they prefer it or hate creationism or whatever! Which I think is an understatement!

Interested in hearing a response.

Evf

[lukec]

You're right, EvF, I think that generally it is understood that "evolutionist" merely describes someone who "believes" in evolution. It's unfortunate that just because the words are polarized that belief for either can be construed as a belief based on faith. Personally I don't have a problem with the word, but I can understand how it could be twisted by proponents of creationism to imply that evolution is a "belief" in the same sense as a belief in god. It's frustrating, but what can you do?

[Tiberius]

I prefer to say I "accept" Evolution rather than believe.

[Kyuuketsuki]

As someone else said, all this fuss over a word.

Personally I think we have to accept it is a word (as far as I can tell it is accepted by the Oxford English Dictionary which I personally consider to be the lord & master of the English language) and as such is valid in conversation.

I don't like the word because it adds nothing (evolutionary biologist already covers it), because it is a deviation (someone else mentioned that we don't say "gravitationalist" or "quantum mechanicist" ... both would be regarded as physicists I suppose) but primarily because it is associated with insult (both "evolutionist" and "Darwinist" seem to have derived from those camps that are anti-evolution i.e. creationists & proponents of intelligent design) and because it implies a philosophical bias towards evolution and I think most of us here, whilst accepting evolution, would accept an alternative theory if it had merit and supporting evidence.

Kyu

[infidel666]

Hi folks

I just joined. First off I'm not an atheist, I'm a Christian. I wanted to introduce myself, let you know that and then see if anybody objected to me joining in on the discussions here. Does anyone mind?

Christians should be locked up in a padded cell in an asylum, screaming their heads off, or begging on the street. Not posting on the Internet.

If you can't tell, I'm spoofing a particular Christian talk radio persona's remarks about certain classes of people.

[Edwardo Piet]

We accept the word atheism and that's a negative word in the sense: As Sam Harris says atheism is word like non-astrologer! You just don't need it.

Although! I agree with Dawkins that sometimes its best to grasp a taboo word and I think just as although atheism is basically just like non-astrologerism is to 'astrologerism' - I agree with Dawkins that I think it is a good word to use simply because it makes some noise, rocks the boat, and is accepted despite the fact its simply a lack of belief in something rather than a belief.

I think perhaps the same could be said about the word evolutionist. The fact it causes controversy and is taboo perhaps it should also be grasped.

And the fact that the definition does not imply having irrational faith in evolution. Evolutionists believe in evolution because of the evidence. I think just as scientists believe in science because of the evidence. Not faith!

I think its simply rather irritating that belief is often thought of as faith because of religion. Not all belief is without evidence. Not all belief is faith therefore.

So I think perhaps its better to overcome and push past some of these taboo words than to avoid them. And besides theists don't make rules here.

If creationists think evolutionist or evolutionism is faith-based isn't that simply pretty similar to atheists being mistakenly equated - by some believers - to heretics or devil-worshippers? Or is that a false analogy?

Evf

EDIT: - P.S: In my Collins dictionary it defines evolutionist as: a person who believes in a theory of evolution.

So regardless of whether its a scientifically accepted theory of evolution that's believed in by whoever, - it says nothing of faith, of irrational belief.

An evolutionist is someone who believes in evolution. I believe in evolution. I don't therefore have blind irrational belief - I don't have faith. I don't have belief without evidence in evolution. There is no such implication there.

Evf

[infidel666]

I don't "believe" in evolution. I simply find it more credible than non-evolution.

[Edwardo Piet]

I find it more credible than non-evolution and certainly creationism...

That's why I believe it. How can you accept evolution to be true (because of the evidence) without believing it to be true? isn't the alternative that you don't believe its true?

Isn't accepting and believing in evolution (faith aside, not all belief is faith. I believe that if I stick a nail in my hand it will hurt. That doesn't mean I have faith that that's the case) the same as believing in it?

Isn't this just a semantic thing.

I believe in evolution because of evidence. So its not faith. For it to have to be "believing" in evolution as in FAITH then I'd have to somehow believe in evolution without evidence.

And I don't see how that's possible since there's plenty of evidence for evolution - so if I believe in it then its not faith-based belief - because there IS evidence for evolution.

So I think it matters whether you want to use the word accept or belief or whatever.

Belief can often be misconstrued as faith because some people believe things on faith rather than on evidence.

But belief certainly doesn't imply faith.

Otherwise there would be no real difference between Sam Harris' book The End of Faith being called that - or being called The End of Belief would there?

And Dawkins saying Faith is belief in the absence of evidence would also mean - BELIEF is belief in the absence of evidence.

That wouldn't make much sense to me really.

Either that or I guess we'd have to say something like "What Dawkins really meant is faith is ACCEPTANCE in the absence of evidence" - as in; faith is accepting beliefs when there's no evidence for them.

I dunno, - its fine to replace 'believe' with 'accept' I think if its simply because you don't like belief being misconstrued as faith, but I think belief does not imply faith (it may be belief in evidence or in absence of evidence, not necessarily faith) and I don't have a problem with "believing in" things myself if its because of evidence - and to use the words belief and believe.

I think once again this is another word that perhaps we should just use and try and perhaps, explain to people that BELIEF does NOT imply irrational and blind belief. It does not imply faith.

I believe that if I run into a hard wall as fast as I can it will hurt. I believe that dogs are animals. I believe that computers exist. The fact that I use the word believe does this imply that there is no evidence for the truth of these beliefs or that I'm believing these things on faith?

The thing is we don't really need to announce that we believe these things because they are obvious to everyone (practically).

With evolution its an issue that we have to mention we believe in it or we accept it - I think because, sadly, there are many who DON'T believe in it or understand it.

Saying that we ACCEPT evolution gives me the reaction of "Well of COURSE I accept it. There are extremely good reasons to accept it."

Saying I believe in it I think doesn't give me a reaction, but it gives theists a reaction, it makes some of them think that its like some kind of faith position - obviously, I think, particularly creationists.

This attracts attention and I think this is perhaps good in SOME ways or ONE way at least. I think it allows us to say "Yes and I bloody well DO believe in evolution. And with good reason too - piles and piles of evidence".

And of course it can also be said, the same is not true for God.

I obviously accept evolution - but the thing is I do also believe in it. And my belief is very very strong because the EVIDENCE is very very strong. Of COURSE I accept it.

And I think it should also be said that: Of COURSE I believe in it.

But its because of evidence, not faith. Faith is belief WITHOUT evidence, and not every belief is without evidence.

Evf