Evolutionist: A simple word, but one likely to enrage or at least provoke in certain situations. For a while I disliked the term myself, but after much thought I have come to accept that there is a need for such a term and that the term evolutionist is appropriate.
I am fully aware that this position will receive harsh criticism, not least because I had an extended debate on the subject in #lor, the live chat, and so here I present my defense.
A couple of weeks ago I started writing an article on micro and macro evolution, seeking a simple but accurate explanation of the two and how they are related. As part of the article I had to discuss differing views and how they applied to evolutionary theory and I came across a stumbling block. I found a need to refer to those who accept evolutionary theory. For a one off that line would be simple, "those that accept evolutionary theory". However for repeated use it makes sense to have a word, a single word or term which applies, and here I was brought up short. I cannot do better than evolutionist.
To be clear, let me define terms
Evolutionist: A person who accepts neo-darwinian evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life on earth.
My defense of the term is presented below and I invite criticism.
Is such a term required?
I contend that such a term is required for numerous reasons. For a start I need it, but I will put that aside. Excusing the hyperbola, the world can be divided into those that accept evolutionary theory and those that don't. This on it's own would not necessitate a term, there are for example people who think the world is flat, but we don't have a term in common use for those who think the earth is round (oblate spheroid). In the case of evolution though, what we see is constant debate between those who accept it and those who don't. Key to note, this debate is not one held in scientific circles, but it is a debate. I would hazard a guess that every single person who reads this article has, at some point in the last 2 months, had cause to refer to people who accept evolutionary theory and has not had at their disposal a word to use.
A quick tangent, it is of no consequence what the person who rejects evolutionary theory is attempting to replace it with or holds as a belief. It does not matter if they are creationist. It is a false dichotomy to suggest that the opposite of acceptance of evolutionary theory is creationism. The opposite of acceptance is rejection, and it so happens that a large proportion of people do reject it, and further, that discussions with those people are common.
On this basis I deem that there is such a need for a term. Those supporting evolutionary theory are the ones making the positive claim, that evolution has occurred and is the explanation for the diversity of life. I simply want to name those in that position for ease of reference as per my definition above, and the best I can do is evolutionist.
Are there alternative names?
There might be, but as yet I am yet to be shown them. Whenever I have broached this topic I find I am bombarded with non-sequiters or the illogical. Let us ask a simple question. What is the goal of this word? The goal is simple, the word must encompass the acceptance of evolutionary theory and ideally nothing else. If it does encompass anything else then it is too loose a definition.
I present here a list of terms that have been suggested and I subsequently explain my reasons for rejecting each.
Scientist:
This one is trivial to reject, but I will do so on a number of counts.
First, it is entirely possible to be a scientist without having the first notion of what evolutionary theory entails. There are undoubtedly leading scientists in certain fields who do not have the first inkling about evolutionary theory. The word scientist is then not strict enough to apply.
Second, many people with no scientific credentials accept evolutionary theory, people who could not rightly be named scientists.
Third, there are many people who would be correctly labelled scientists who reject evolutionary theory. One must appeal to the no true scotsman fallacy if one is to argue the point.
Rationalist:
Again I feel this is trivial to reject in numerous ways. What do we deem rational? Is belief in a deity rational? I would argue not, so does belief in a deity make someone irrational? If so you must catagorise a huge number of evolutionary biologists as irrational. Ken Miller springs immediately to mind as a perfect candidate to demonstrate the point. A perfectly rational person with an irrational belief. If you wish to say that a word to describe a person who accepts evolutionary theory is rational then you must accept that every other belief that person holds is also rational. This would include any superstitions they may hold. Again, the term is far too loose in some contexts, far too restrictive in others.
I would of course contend that acceptance of evolutionary theory is rational, but that does not make everyone who accepts evolutionary theory rational. Much like a rose is a flower, therefore all flowers are roses. The logic does not hold, therefore this definition breaks.
The simplest criticism is to note that the definition of evolutionist I proposed has nothing at all to say about the reasons for accepting evolutionary theory, it is simply acknowledgement that someone does. Many people accept evolutionary theory without the faintest notion of much of what it has to say.
Biologist/Evolutionary Biologist:
Both fail for the same reasons as scientists, it is perfectly possible to accept evolutionary theory without being either of the above.
I invite anyone to propose alternatives to be either accepted or attacked. Please note that I do not particularly like the term evolutionist, for reasons that I will come to shortly, but that I do find I have need of it.
Further proposed reasons for rejection are:
Creationists will use it negatively or to imply religious belief:
I agree entirely, they might, and this is the reason I don't like the term. Indeed they will and actually already do use this term negatively. My rebuttal to this is simple, as long as the definition of the word is clear it does not matter how they use it, it is simple to point out that they are arguing against a straw man version. Creationists have a long history of abusing well defined terms. Atheism, for example, is often bastardised in any debate with theists, quite frequently suggested to make some positive claim or to be a religion and to require faith. Do we subsequently cease referring to atheism? Of course we don't, because the word atheism is extremely useful in context, it is a way of identifying a given set of beliefs that a person either holds or does not.
In the same way I propose evolutionist. It is simply a recognition that a person accepts evolutionary theory. It does not go into the details of why they do so and it doesn't care. It simply refers to the acceptance. A creationist might use it in a derogatory way. They may bastardise it's meaning, erect straw men of it, use it to create a false dichotomy or equality. None of that matters to the function and definition of the word and its use in discourse.
To summarise, I propose that use of the term evolutionist can be attacked on two fronts. You can debate whether or not a word is required to refer to "those who accept evolutionary theory". I find that I have a need of that term, hence my argument in its favour. Alternatively, you can come up with an alternative term that retains the explanatory power of that word.
Let the war commence.
I am fully aware that this position will receive harsh criticism, not least because I had an extended debate on the subject in #lor, the live chat, and so here I present my defense.
A couple of weeks ago I started writing an article on micro and macro evolution, seeking a simple but accurate explanation of the two and how they are related. As part of the article I had to discuss differing views and how they applied to evolutionary theory and I came across a stumbling block. I found a need to refer to those who accept evolutionary theory. For a one off that line would be simple, "those that accept evolutionary theory". However for repeated use it makes sense to have a word, a single word or term which applies, and here I was brought up short. I cannot do better than evolutionist.
To be clear, let me define terms
Evolutionist: A person who accepts neo-darwinian evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life on earth.
My defense of the term is presented below and I invite criticism.
Is such a term required?
I contend that such a term is required for numerous reasons. For a start I need it, but I will put that aside. Excusing the hyperbola, the world can be divided into those that accept evolutionary theory and those that don't. This on it's own would not necessitate a term, there are for example people who think the world is flat, but we don't have a term in common use for those who think the earth is round (oblate spheroid). In the case of evolution though, what we see is constant debate between those who accept it and those who don't. Key to note, this debate is not one held in scientific circles, but it is a debate. I would hazard a guess that every single person who reads this article has, at some point in the last 2 months, had cause to refer to people who accept evolutionary theory and has not had at their disposal a word to use.
A quick tangent, it is of no consequence what the person who rejects evolutionary theory is attempting to replace it with or holds as a belief. It does not matter if they are creationist. It is a false dichotomy to suggest that the opposite of acceptance of evolutionary theory is creationism. The opposite of acceptance is rejection, and it so happens that a large proportion of people do reject it, and further, that discussions with those people are common.
On this basis I deem that there is such a need for a term. Those supporting evolutionary theory are the ones making the positive claim, that evolution has occurred and is the explanation for the diversity of life. I simply want to name those in that position for ease of reference as per my definition above, and the best I can do is evolutionist.
Are there alternative names?
There might be, but as yet I am yet to be shown them. Whenever I have broached this topic I find I am bombarded with non-sequiters or the illogical. Let us ask a simple question. What is the goal of this word? The goal is simple, the word must encompass the acceptance of evolutionary theory and ideally nothing else. If it does encompass anything else then it is too loose a definition.
I present here a list of terms that have been suggested and I subsequently explain my reasons for rejecting each.
Scientist:
This one is trivial to reject, but I will do so on a number of counts.
First, it is entirely possible to be a scientist without having the first notion of what evolutionary theory entails. There are undoubtedly leading scientists in certain fields who do not have the first inkling about evolutionary theory. The word scientist is then not strict enough to apply.
Second, many people with no scientific credentials accept evolutionary theory, people who could not rightly be named scientists.
Third, there are many people who would be correctly labelled scientists who reject evolutionary theory. One must appeal to the no true scotsman fallacy if one is to argue the point.
Rationalist:
Again I feel this is trivial to reject in numerous ways. What do we deem rational? Is belief in a deity rational? I would argue not, so does belief in a deity make someone irrational? If so you must catagorise a huge number of evolutionary biologists as irrational. Ken Miller springs immediately to mind as a perfect candidate to demonstrate the point. A perfectly rational person with an irrational belief. If you wish to say that a word to describe a person who accepts evolutionary theory is rational then you must accept that every other belief that person holds is also rational. This would include any superstitions they may hold. Again, the term is far too loose in some contexts, far too restrictive in others.
I would of course contend that acceptance of evolutionary theory is rational, but that does not make everyone who accepts evolutionary theory rational. Much like a rose is a flower, therefore all flowers are roses. The logic does not hold, therefore this definition breaks.
The simplest criticism is to note that the definition of evolutionist I proposed has nothing at all to say about the reasons for accepting evolutionary theory, it is simply acknowledgement that someone does. Many people accept evolutionary theory without the faintest notion of much of what it has to say.
Biologist/Evolutionary Biologist:
Both fail for the same reasons as scientists, it is perfectly possible to accept evolutionary theory without being either of the above.
I invite anyone to propose alternatives to be either accepted or attacked. Please note that I do not particularly like the term evolutionist, for reasons that I will come to shortly, but that I do find I have need of it.
Further proposed reasons for rejection are:
Creationists will use it negatively or to imply religious belief:
I agree entirely, they might, and this is the reason I don't like the term. Indeed they will and actually already do use this term negatively. My rebuttal to this is simple, as long as the definition of the word is clear it does not matter how they use it, it is simple to point out that they are arguing against a straw man version. Creationists have a long history of abusing well defined terms. Atheism, for example, is often bastardised in any debate with theists, quite frequently suggested to make some positive claim or to be a religion and to require faith. Do we subsequently cease referring to atheism? Of course we don't, because the word atheism is extremely useful in context, it is a way of identifying a given set of beliefs that a person either holds or does not.
In the same way I propose evolutionist. It is simply a recognition that a person accepts evolutionary theory. It does not go into the details of why they do so and it doesn't care. It simply refers to the acceptance. A creationist might use it in a derogatory way. They may bastardise it's meaning, erect straw men of it, use it to create a false dichotomy or equality. None of that matters to the function and definition of the word and its use in discourse.
To summarise, I propose that use of the term evolutionist can be attacked on two fronts. You can debate whether or not a word is required to refer to "those who accept evolutionary theory". I find that I have a need of that term, hence my argument in its favour. Alternatively, you can come up with an alternative term that retains the explanatory power of that word.
Let the war commence.
