Why is the Term Darwinist Offensive?

[J.W.D. Wolfe]

I have noticed that several people have take the term
"Darwinist" as insulting and offensive.

Why is this? After all those who advocate evolution
are in a similiar vein to those advocating socalism.
They are socialist. Those who desire communist are
communist, marxist, whoever supports capitalism are
capitalist.

So, what is the problem with calling those who subscribe to
Darwin's theory evolutionist? It seems natural enough.

[Alan Morgan]

In article <mBusm.37141$u76....@newsfe10.iad>,

I think the term "scientist" is preferable.

Alan

--
Defendit numerus

[Dan Listermann]

"J.W.D. Wolfe" <" lobo\""@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mBusm.37141$u76....@newsfe10.iad...

If you believe in the theory of gravity, do you want to be referred to as a
"gravitist?"

.

[Ernest Major]

In message <dd063$4ab27796$4a53bf9f$10...@FUSE.NET>, Dan Listermann
<d...@listermann.com> writes

The correct analogy, it seems to me, would be Newtonist or Einsteinist -
and you may have intended to refer the fact of gravity, not the theory
of gravity.
--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

In message <mBusm.37141$u76....@newsfe10.iad>, J.W.D. Wolfe <"
lobo\""@gmail.com> writes

>
>I have noticed that several people have take the term
>"Darwinist" as insulting and offensive.
>
>Why is this? After all those who advocate evolution
>are in a similiar vein to those advocating socalism.
>They are socialist. Those who desire communist are
>communist, marxist, whoever supports capitalism are
>capitalist.

Contrary to your claim ("After all those who advocate evolution
are in a similiar vein to those advocating socalism") evolutionary
biology is a field of science, not an ideology.

>
>So, what is the problem with calling those who subscribe to
>Darwin's theory evolutionist? It seems natural enough.
>

You've switched terms between the subject line and the text. Responding
to subject line, do you also find it natural to talk of Newtonist,
Daltonist, Maxwellists, Lyallists, Heisenbergists and Einsteinists?

Some of the objections to the use of Darwinist are that it's used with
rhetorical malice.

1) To imply that acceptance of the factuality of common decent with
modification through the agency of natural selection and other processes
is an ideological position.

2) To downplay all the work that scientists have done on the subject
over the last 150 years.

3) Related to these, to imply that Darwin's writings are treated as
"holy writ".
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

[Dan Listermann]

"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:idxssFuT...@meden.invalid...

I was coming off "evolutionists," not "Darwinist."

Gravity is still a theory, just like evolution, but probably not like the
fact that "God" is still just a theory.

.

[Ernest Major]

In message <7181d$4ab27d05$4a53bf9f$12...@FUSE.NET>, Dan Listermann

<d...@listermann.com> writes
>
>"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:idxssFuT...@meden.invalid...
>> In message <dd063$4ab27796$4a53bf9f$10...@FUSE.NET>, Dan Listermann
>> <d...@listermann.com> writes
>>>
>>>"J.W.D. Wolfe" <" lobo\""@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:mBusm.37141$u76....@newsfe10.iad...
>>>>
>>>> I have noticed that several people have take the term
>>>> "Darwinist" as insulting and offensive.
>>>>
>>>> Why is this? After all those who advocate evolution
>>>> are in a similiar vein to those advocating socalism.
>>>> They are socialist. Those who desire communist are
>>>> communist, marxist, whoever supports capitalism are
>>>> capitalist.
>>>>
>>>> So, what is the problem with calling those who subscribe to
>>>> Darwin's theory evolutionist? It seems natural enough.
>>>>
>>>
>>>If you believe in the theory of gravity, do you want to be referred to as
>>>a
>>>"gravitist?"
>>>
>> The correct analogy, it seems to me, would be Newtonist or Einsteinist -
>> and you may have intended to refer the fact of gravity, not the theory of
>> gravity.
>
>I was coming off "evolutionists," not "Darwinist."

Yep. Sorry - I didn't notice that he'd switched terms.

>
>Gravity is still a theory, just like evolution, but probably not like the
>fact that "God" is still just a theory.
>

--
Alias Ernest Major

[Ralph]

Probably because it is a derogatory term when used by creationists. Also
it is a gross error to assume that evolution has not progressed since
Darwin's time.

[Nomen Publicus]

Because there's been 200 years of research and development since Darwin
first wrote about the subject. It's like calling a nuclear physicist a
Newtonist. It implies someone who is stuck with old ideas and hasn't
bothered to learn anything new.

--
The telescope sweeps the skies without finding God. -- Pierre Laplace

[Thurisaz the Einherjer]

J.W.D. Wolfe:

> So, what is the problem with calling those who subscribe to
> Darwin's theory evolutionist? It seems natural enough.

1. "evolutionist" implies that acceptance of evolutionary theory is based
not on facts but on an ideology (supposedly "evolutionism")
2. "darwinism" creates the impression that the only thing that matters to
those who accept evolutionary theory are the words of Mr Darwin. What
ultimately matters, however, are the FACTS.

--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."

My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus

[Dan Listermann]

"Ralph" <mmma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a66dnVbVTPqUGC_X...@giganews.com...

That is an understatement. It is like they think that what Darwin wrote was
some sort of scripture like the stuff they worship written from campfire
mumblings of bronze age goat herders.

.

[Inez]

On Sep 17, 11:59 am, Thurisaz the Einherjer

<MAILTOsecret...@carcosa.de> wrote:
> J.W.D. Wolfe:
>
> > So, what is the problem with calling those who subscribe to
> > Darwin's theory evolutionist? It seems natural enough.
>
> 1. "evolutionist" implies that acceptance of evolutionary theory is based
> not on facts but on an ideology (supposedly "evolutionism")
> 2. "darwinism" creates the impression that the only thing that matters to
> those who accept evolutionary theory are the words of Mr Darwin. What
> ultimately matters, however, are the FACTS.
>

Factist!

[Inez]

On Sep 17, 11:59 am, Thurisaz the Einherjer
<MAILTOsecret...@carcosa.de> wrote:

> J.W.D. Wolfe:
>
> > So, what is the problem with calling those who subscribe to
> > Darwin's theory evolutionist? It seems natural enough.
>
> 1. "evolutionist" implies that acceptance of evolutionary theory is based
> not on facts but on an ideology (supposedly "evolutionism")
> 2. "darwinism" creates the impression that the only thing that matters to
> those who accept evolutionary theory are the words of Mr Darwin. What
> ultimately matters, however, are the FACTS.

Factist!

[odin]

> I have noticed that several people have take the term
> "Darwinist" as insulting and offensive.

Not insulting or offensive, just stupid and awkward sounding. Is an
engineer who uses Newtonian mechanics and Newtonian calculus in
designing a mechanical device called a "Newtonist"? Is a physicist who
uses quantum mechanics to design a wafer fab process called a
"Diracist" or a "Schrödingerist"? Is a programmer who applies
relativistic models to implementing GPS triangulation algorithms
called and "Einsteinist". Is Hawking called a "Schwarzschildist" when
he works through black hole calculations and "Led Zeppelin" when he
listens to "Whole Lotta Love"? "Darwinian" can be OK, just as
"Newtonian" or "Einsteinian" can be OK in certain cases. "Zeppelinian"
is usually no good though, IMHO. But "Darwinist" just sounds gay no
matter what sentence you put it in (expect in sentences like this one
that discuss the term at a meta-level or higher). "Scientist" or
"biologist" works better than Darwinist in virtually all cases. BTW,
are you really all that concerned about what might be insulting and
offensive?

> Why is this?  After all those who advocate evolution
> are in a similiar vein to those advocating socalism.
> They are socialist. Those who desire communist are
> communist, marxist, whoever supports capitalism are
> capitalist.

The only term that you mention above that draws a reasonable parallel
would be "Marxist", as that is a person's name like "Darwin". But to
be honest, Marxist is no good either. It is far too ambiguous, as it
opens the can of worms regarding whether you are referring to
Grouchoist or Harpoist or Grouchoist or Chicoist ... or perhaps even
Zeppoist.

> So, what is the problem with calling those who subscribe to
> Darwin's theory evolutionist? It seems natural enough.

I thought that you said above that "Darwinist" was the term under
discussion. Now you are changing it to the word "evolutionist"? Well,
again, "evolutionist" just sounds stupid... like "gravitationist" or
"germist". But "Relativist" sounds ok, so you might have a point after
all. But not if you are a realist.

[Rolf]

Of course not, I am a Newtonist, what else? ;-)
>
> .

[Ralph]

:-)))))).

[odin]

> I have noticed that several people have take the term
> "Darwinist" as insulting and offensive.

No. Not insulting or offensive, just stupid and awkward sounding. Is
an engineer who uses Newtonian mechanics and calculus in designing a

device called a "Newtonist"? Is a physicist who uses quantum mechanics
to design a wafer fab process called a "Diracist" or a
"Schrödingerist"? Is a programmer who applies relativistic models to

implementing a GPS triangulation algorithm called and "Einsteinist"?

Is Hawking called a "Schwarzschildist" when he works through black

hole calculations and a "Led Zeppelinist" when he listens to "Whole
Lotta Love"? The word "Darwinian" can be OK though, just as
"Newtonian" or "Einsteinian" or "Aristotelian" can be OK in certain
cases. But "Led Zeppelinian" is usually no good, so be careful with
that one. But just like “Aristotelist" and "Calvinist" just sound gay,
"Darwinist" also sounds pretty god-damned gay no matter what sentence

you put it in (expect in sentences like this one that discuss the term

at a meta-level or higher). So as a general rule, just avoid sounding
gay and you should be fine. And the take home point here is that
"scientist" or "biologist" works better than "Darwinist" in virtually
all cases. BTW, the word "Darwinist" is an abomination to the lord

(expect in sentences like this one that discuss the term at a meta-
level or higher).

> Why is this? After all those who advocate evolution

> are in a similiar vein to those advocating socalism.
> They are socialist. Those who desire communist are
> communist, marxist, whoever supports capitalism are
> capitalist.

The only term that you mention above that draws a reasonable parallel
would be "Marxist", as it is the promulgator’s name as is "Darwinist".
But to be honest, Marxist is no good either. It’s not really all that
gay, so the lord doesn’t really give a crap about it. But it is far
too ambiguous, as it opens up a can of gay worms regarding whether you
are referring to Grouchoist or Harpoist or Chicoist ... or perhaps
even Zeppoist. And that does piss the lord off royally.

> So, what is the problem with calling those who subscribe to
> Darwin's theory evolutionist? It seems natural enough.

I thought that you said above that "Darwinist" was the term under

discussion. Now you are changing it to the word "evolutionist"? Well,

again, "evolutionist" just sounds gay... like "gravitationist" or
"germist". But "Relativist" does sound ok. So go figure. I guess I
really don’t know the answer to your question. Sorry you spent so much
time reading this far.

-lord fnord

[Desertphile]

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:45:46 -0400, "J.W.D. Wolfe" <"
lobo\""@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I have noticed that several people have take the term
> "Darwinist" as insulting and offensive.

Naw: it's just a stupid thing to do.

> Why is this? After all those who advocate evolution
> are in a similiar vein to those advocating socalism.

Nut.

--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz

[J.W.D. Wolfe]

These two terms are often used interchangeably even by writers, science
writers and posters on these NGs.

[J.W.D. Wolfe]

odin wrote:
>> I have noticed that several people have take the term
>> "Darwinist" as insulting and offensive.
>
> Not insulting or offensive, just stupid and awkward sounding. Is an
> engineer who uses Newtonian mechanics and Newtonian calculus in
> designing a mechanical device called a "Newtonist"? Is a physicist who
> uses quantum mechanics to design a wafer fab process called a

> "Diracist" or a "Schr�dingerist"? Is a programmer who applies

I assumed the two terms were quite interchangeable by those people who
use the two words.

[J.W.D. Wolfe]

[J.W.D. Wolfe]

I agree, it doesn't sound reasonable.
>> .
>
>

[Nashton]

Mainly because of insecurity. Associating the fragile and useless ToE
with one particular person and all his attributes, at least at a
subconscious level, is far less desirable than associating it with real,
useful, hard and experimentally repeatable science. Hence the fact that
it carries a pejorative meaning and "insulting" to some.

My 2 cents.

[Rusty Sites]

You are greatly exaggerating that value.

[Dan Listermann]

"Nashton" <na...@no.ca> wrote in message news:h8u7uh$lj$1...@aioe.org...

>>> So, what is the problem with calling those who subscribe to
>> Darwin's theory evolutionist? It seems natural enough.
>>
>
> Mainly because of insecurity. Associating the fragile and useless ToE with
> one particular person and all his attributes, at least at a subconscious
> level, is far less desirable than associating it with real, useful, hard
> and experimentally repeatable science. Hence the fact that it carries a
> pejorative meaning and "insulting" to some.
>

So all science has to be able to be done in front of your face.

.

[VoiceOfReason]

It's often used as a pejorative, and is used to imply that "Darwinism"
or "evolutionism" is an ideology instead of science.

ISTR they tried that tactic in Federal court once, and get their asses
handed to them.

[Sla#s]

Dan Listermann wrote:
<SNIP>>

> Gravity is still a theory, just like evolution, but probably not like
> the fact that "God" is still just a theory.
>

Surely "God" is a hypothesis not a theory.

Slatts

[J.W.D. Wolfe]

Being called an evolutionist or a Darwinist has the same level of insult
as being called a racist.
>> .
>>
>
>
> :-)))))).
>

[J.W.D. Wolfe]

Alan Morgan wrote:
> In article <mBusm.37141$u76....@newsfe10.iad>,

> J.W.D. Wolfe <" lobo\""@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have noticed that several people have take the term
>> "Darwinist" as insulting and offensive.
>>
>> Why is this? After all those who advocate evolution
>> are in a similiar vein to those advocating socalism.
>> They are socialist. Those who desire communist are
>> communist, marxist, whoever supports capitalism are
>> capitalist.
>>
>> So, what is the problem with calling those who subscribe to
>> Darwin's theory evolutionist? It seems natural enough.
>

> I think the term "scientist" is preferable.
>
So, anyone who advocates evolution is a scientist?
>
> Alan
>
>

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:16:52 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Dan Listermann"
<d...@listermann.com>:

God (the existence thereof) isn't a scientific theory.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:59:11 -0300, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Nashton <na...@no.ca>:

>J.W.D. Wolfe wrote:
>>
>> I have noticed that several people have take the term
>> "Darwinist" as insulting and offensive.
>>
>> Why is this? After all those who advocate evolution
>> are in a similiar vein to those advocating socalism.
>> They are socialist. Those who desire communist are
>> communist, marxist, whoever supports capitalism are
>> capitalist.
>>
>> So, what is the problem with calling those who subscribe to
>> Darwin's theory evolutionist? It seems natural enough.
>>
>
>Mainly because of insecurity.

I agree. It's the insecurity of those who deny the evidence
supporting the ToE which leads them to attempt to equate
acceptance of evidence with religious belief. Seems a shame
they're so mentally straitjacketed.

<snip>

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:38:54 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Sla#s" <ph...@KNOTslatts.net>:

Not even a hypothesis, at least not as scientists use the
term. A hypothesis must be testable. The existence of
deities is an untestable conjecture.

[Ron O]

On Sep 17, 12:45 pm, "J.W.D. Wolfe" <" lobo\""@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have noticed that several people have take the term
> "Darwinist" as insulting and offensive.
>
> Why is this?  After all those who advocate evolution
> are in a similiar vein to those advocating socalism.
> They are socialist. Those who desire communist are
> communist, marxist, whoever supports capitalism are
> capitalist.
>
> So, what is the problem with calling those who subscribe to
> Darwin's theory evolutionist? It seems natural enough.

Darwinist is mostly a propaganda ploy for the creationists that are
too bogus to do anything else. That is it.

Basically Darwinism is just anything that the anti-science contingent
doesn't like about science. Just stick around and find out. The Big
Bang is Darwinism. The age of the earth is Darwinism, etc.

Ron Okimoto

[Louann Miller]

"J.W.D. Wolfe" <" lobo\""@gmail.com> wrote in news:8Uysm.72309$Y83.9934
@newsfe21.iad:

>>> So, what is the problem with calling those who subscribe to
>>> Darwin's theory evolutionist? It seems natural enough.
>>
>> I think the term "scientist" is preferable.
> >
> So, anyone who advocates evolution is a scientist?

More accept than advocate. You don't have to LIKE evolution, merely look at
the evidence and admit it exists.

Plenty of people who accept evolution are not scientists; however, people
who are scientists and do NOT accept evolution are damn near a completely
null set.

Compare to: believing that smoking causes cancer doesn't make you a doctor,
nor does believing in gravity make you a physicist, nor does being able to
construct a readable sentence make you a novelist. But in each sentence,
anyone who DOESN'T fit the first term has fallen at the first fence in
qualifying for the second term.

(Some readers may bring up the medical staff of the American Tobacco
Institute, or antigravity inventors, or James Joyce. I reply, that proves
my point.)

[J.W.D. Wolfe]

Louann Miller wrote:
> "J.W.D. Wolfe" <" lobo\""@gmail.com> wrote in news:8Uysm.72309$Y83.9934
> @newsfe21.iad:
>
>>>> So, what is the problem with calling those who subscribe to
>>>> Darwin's theory evolutionist? It seems natural enough.
>>> I think the term "scientist" is preferable.
>>>
>> So, anyone who advocates evolution is a scientist?
>
> More accept than advocate. You don't have to LIKE evolution, merely look at
> the evidence and admit it exists.
>

That's not the issue. Probably 90% of those who subscribe to evolution
are not scientist. My response was to the statement "I think the term
'scientist' is preferable.
>
<snip unquestioned statements> >

[Alan Morgan]

In article <h8u7uh$lj$1...@aioe.org>, Nashton <na...@no.ca> wrote:

>Mainly because of insecurity. Associating the fragile and useless ToE
>with one particular person and all his attributes, at least at a
>subconscious level, is far less desirable than associating it with real,
>useful, hard and experimentally repeatable science. Hence the fact that
>it carries a pejorative meaning and "insulting" to some.
>
>My 2 cents.

I think I'm owed some change.

Alan
--
Defendit numerus

[Alan Morgan]

In article <vvbao6-...@buffy.sighup.org.uk>,
Nomen Publicus <nomen.p...@buffy.sighup.org.uk> wrote:

>J.W.D. Wolfe <" lobo\""@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I have noticed that several people have take the term
>> "Darwinist" as insulting and offensive.
>>
>> Why is this? After all those who advocate evolution
>> are in a similiar vein to those advocating socalism.
>> They are socialist. Those who desire communist are
>> communist, marxist, whoever supports capitalism are
>> capitalist.
>>

>> So, what is the problem with calling those who subscribe to
>> Darwin's theory evolutionist? It seems natural enough.
>

>Because there's been 200 years of research and development since Darwin
>first wrote about the subject. It's like calling a nuclear physicist a
>Newtonist. It implies someone who is stuck with old ideas and hasn't
>bothered to learn anything new.

I think it also implies a possibly minority position or that there are
other equally valid positions out there. Consider, if you believe that
bin Laden was behind 9/11 you don't call yourself a bin Laden-ist. I'm
not an "Obama was born in the US"-ist. These are the default positions.
Those who want to stake out alternative positions can give themselves
names; the majority view is just the majority view.

The label "evolutionist" implies that there is a need for the label and
that there are other positions, perhaps equally valid positions, perhaps
equally valid positions that are not well represented in the scientific
world.

Alan
--
Defendit numerus

[Frank J]

On Sep 17, 1:45 pm, "J.W.D. Wolfe" <" lobo\""@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have noticed that several people have take the term
> "Darwinist" as insulting and offensive.
>
> Why is this?  After all those who advocate evolution
> are in a similiar vein to those advocating socalism.
> They are socialist. Those who desire communist are
> communist, marxist, whoever supports capitalism are
> capitalist.
>
> So, what is the problem with calling those who subscribe to
> Darwin's theory evolutionist? It seems natural enough.

Right, and I'm a chemist. Which means that my religion is
"chemism". ;-)

Seriously, I see the term "Darwinist" as not offensive but a pathetic
sales pitch. I suspect that Darwin would agree. When someone suggests
that I am one I jokingly reply that I'm not but rather a
"Kauffmaniac." It goes way over the heads of the rubes, but the perps
know what I mean. Like any scientist I am rooting for someone to
"dethrone Darwin," and I think that Stuart Kauffman has the best
chance, though still an extremely slim one. Classic creationists don't
have a snowball's chance in hell, and ID scammers are worse off than
that.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <pixsm.15937$j34....@newsfe01.iad>,

Any one going to test that? We could measure Dan with a Newton meter.

--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <h8uapu$vqr$1...@localhost.localdomain>,
"Sla#s" <ph...@KNOTslatts.net> wrote:

What, you deny the existence of Aphrodite?

[Thurisaz the Einherjer]

Inez:

> ...What
>> ultimately matters, however, are the FACTS.
> Factist!

And I'm even proud of being one! :P

--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."

My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus

[John Wilkins]

In article <mBusm.37141$u76....@newsfe10.iad>, J.W.D. Wolfe <
lobo\""@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have noticed that several people have take the term
> "Darwinist" as insulting and offensive.
>
> Why is this? After all those who advocate evolution
> are in a similiar vein to those advocating socalism.
> They are socialist. Those who desire communist are
> communist, marxist, whoever supports capitalism are
> capitalist.
>
> So, what is the problem with calling those who subscribe to
> Darwin's theory evolutionist? It seems natural enough.
>

http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2008/07/getting_rid_of_darwinis
m.php

[Mike Painter]

J.W.D. Wolfe" <" lobo\" wrote:
> I have noticed that several people have take the term
> "Darwinist" as insulting and offensive.
>
> Why is this? After all those who advocate evolution
> are in a similiar vein to those advocating socalism.
> They are socialist. Those who desire communist are
> communist, marxist, whoever supports capitalism are
> capitalist.
>
> So, what is the problem with calling those who subscribe to
> Darwin's theory evolutionist? It seems natural enough.

Nothing is wrong with calling them an evolutionist.
Calling them a Darwinist is usually done by a fundamnetlaist and is usually
meant as an insult.
You rarely hear people called Newtonists,Avogadroists, WrightBrotherists,...

[R Brown]

"J.W.D. Wolfe" <" lobo\""@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mBusm.37141$u76....@newsfe10.iad...

>
> I have noticed that several people have take the term
> "Darwinist" as insulting and offensive.
>
> Why is this? After all those who advocate evolution
> are in a similiar vein to those advocating socalism.
> They are socialist. Those who desire communist are
> communist, marxist, whoever supports capitalism are
> capitalist.
>
> So, what is the problem with calling those who subscribe to
> Darwin's theory evolutionist? It seems natural enough.
>

Because it's not about Darwin. If Wallace had beat him to publishing, would
creationists be yapping about "Wallacism" today? Their problem is they think
this is a battle of ideologies, of "isms". It is not. This is a problem of
their own invention. They make reference to Darwin in the hope that if they
can discredit him, the theory of evolution will be discredited also.

[Chris]

You get what you pay for.

Chris

[TomS]

"On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 07:13:21 -0600, in article
<9ILsm.42374$JG1....@newsfe24.iad>, R Brown stated..."

One thing that particularly amuses me about this is when they try
to discredit Darwin by pointing out that he "stole the ideas".

That, of course, means that however nasty a person Darwin was, he
doesn't bear any responsibility for evolution - it was all the
work of some other people.

So, let's say, Darwin cheated Wallace out of the credit, and Darwin
was a crook. Fine. That means that we don't discredit evolution by
discrediting Darwin.

If only the creationists could occasionally come up with a clever
argument.

As it is, the only entertainment value in creationism is in seeing
how many different ways they get it wrong.

--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2

[Dan Listermann]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:mch5b5hghbp1ti84p...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:38:54 +0100, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by "Sla#s" <ph...@KNOTslatts.net>:
>
>>Dan Listermann wrote:
>><SNIP>>
>>> Gravity is still a theory, just like evolution, but probably not like
>>> the fact that "God" is still just a theory.
>>>
>>
>>Surely "God" is a hypothesis not a theory.
>
> Not even a hypothesis, at least not as scientists use the
> term. A hypothesis must be testable. The existence of
> deities is an untestable conjecture.
> --

"Untestable conjecture?" Try "flaming ass fantasy."

.

[Dan Listermann]

"Sla#s" <ph...@KNOTslatts.net> wrote in message
news:h8uapu$vqr$1...@localhost.localdomain...

True enough, but the fundies like to say that "evolution is just a theory,"
so "theory" works best for them. Who wants to explain the word "hypothesis"
to them?

.

[Robert Camp]

I think you're owed some interest.

RLC

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Sep 17, 6:24 pm, "J.W.D. Wolfe" <" lobo\""@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ralph wrote:
> > Dan Listermann wrote:

> >> "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

How's that?

Mitchell Coffey

[J.W.D. Wolfe]

None of those nomenclatures are ever heard. But Darwinist is, as is
evolutionist.

[Dan Listermann]

"J.W.D. Wolfe" <" lobo\""@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nFPsm.129381$nL7....@newsfe18.iad...

Only by creationists.

.

[Kalkidas]

"J.W.D. Wolfe" <" lobo\""@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:mBusm.37141$u76....@newsfe10.iad...

>
> I have noticed that several people have take the term
> "Darwinist" as insulting and offensive.
>
> Why is this? After all those who advocate evolution
> are in a similiar vein to those advocating socalism.
> They are socialist. Those who desire communist are
> communist, marxist, whoever supports capitalism are
> capitalist.
>
> So, what is the problem with calling those who subscribe to
> Darwin's theory evolutionist? It seems natural enough.

They prefer the impersonal moniker "evolutionist." To them, it sounds more
"scientific" than "Darwinist." It's all part of their materialistic agenda
to reject any notion of persons and personalities as authorities. Only
impersonal "science" is to have any authority. Also, they are well aware
that Darwin's ideas are wrong and they want to be able to distance
themselves from him when the big bluff of "origin of species by chance
mutation and natural selection" is finally swept into the dustbin of
history.

[J.W.D. Wolfe]

I would add to the terms Evolutionist, Darwinist the word Darwinian.
Does this word likewise unacceptable? Why?
>
>
> .
>

[TomS]

"On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:02:09 -0700, in article
<h90hv2$1h9n$1...@adenine.netfront.net>, Kalkidas stated..."

If we want to draw a parallel between advocating socialism and
those advocating evolution, then who is there who advocates
evolution?

Do you know of anyone who *wants* evolution to happen? As if any
of us had any choice in the matter? Evolution is going to happen,
no matter what we do to prevent it (or to encourage it).

"They prefer the impersonal moniker 'evolutionist'" ... just as
much as "they" who support gravitation prefer to be called
"gravitationists" rather than "Newtonists". Or those who support
germs prefer to be called "germists" rather than "Pasteurists".

All those materialists (that is, those people who support material),
they're all alike, aren't they?

[Desertphile]

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:59:11 -0300, Nashton <na...@no.ca> wrote:

> J.W.D. Wolfe wrote:
> >
> > I have noticed that several people have take the term
> > "Darwinist" as insulting and offensive.
> >
> > Why is this? After all those who advocate evolution
> > are in a similiar vein to those advocating socalism.
> > They are socialist. Those who desire communist are
> > communist, marxist, whoever supports capitalism are
> > capitalist.
> >
> > So, what is the problem with calling those who subscribe to
> > Darwin's theory evolutionist? It seems natural enough.

Appears Mental.

> Mainly because of insecurity. Associating the fragile and useless ToE
> with one particular person and all his attributes, at least at a
> subconscious level, is far less desirable than associating it with real,
> useful, hard and experimentally repeatable science. Hence the fact that
> it carries a pejorative meaning and "insulting" to some.
>
> My 2 cents.

You giving an opinion about science is like a Ku Klux Klan member
giving an opinion about black people.

--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz

[J.W.D. Wolfe]

What about the word Darwinian. Does this term fall into the same
category as Darwinist, evolutionist?
>
> .
>

[Desertphile]

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:25:29 -0400, "Dan Listermann"
<d...@listermann.com> wrote:

> "Nashton" <na...@no.ca> wrote in message news:h8u7uh$lj$1...@aioe.org...

> >>> So, what is the problem with calling those who subscribe to
> >> Darwin's theory evolutionist? It seems natural enough.

> > Mainly because of insecurity. Associating the fragile and useless ToE with

> > one particular person and all his attributes, at least at a subconscious
> > level, is far less desirable than associating it with real, useful, hard
> > and experimentally repeatable science. Hence the fact that it carries a
> > pejorative meaning and "insulting" to some.

> So all science has to be able to be done in front of your face.

Iff I ever murder someone, I hope Naffoff is on the jury.

[Desertphile]

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:36:55 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
<papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:

>
>
> J.W.D. Wolfe wrote:
> > I have noticed that several people have take the term
> > "Darwinist" as insulting and offensive.
> >
> > Why is this? After all those who advocate evolution
> > are in a similiar vein to those advocating socalism.
> > They are socialist. Those who desire communist are
> > communist, marxist, whoever supports capitalism are
> > capitalist.
> >

> > So, what is the problem with calling those who subscribe to
> > Darwin's theory evolutionist? It seems natural enough.

> It's often used as a pejorative, and is used to imply that "Darwinism"
> or "evolutionism" is an ideology instead of science.
>
> ISTR they tried that tactic in Federal court once, and get their asses
> handed to them.

Philip Johnson loves the word "Darwinism," and he used it
extensively in his book to refer to what he believes to be
evolutionary theory. When he was in talk.origins he was asked
dozens (and dozens and dozens) of times what he meant by
"Darwinism," and he refused to answer. His "Darwinism" had nothing
even closely similar to evolutionary theory, nor anything close to
what Charles Darwin ever wrote. He would have been better off
using the word "Johnsonism."

[Dan Listermann]

"Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:h90hv2$1h9n$1...@adenine.netfront.net...

So some day you can see actual evidence, not just "it's too complicated" of
a creation? Wait, wait, we can see it now! Sure, show it.

.

[Desertphile]

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 20:07:36 -0400, "J.W.D. Wolfe" <"
lobo\""@gmail.com> wrote:

> Louann Miller wrote:
> > "J.W.D. Wolfe" <" lobo\""@gmail.com> wrote in news:8Uysm.72309$Y83.9934
> > @newsfe21.iad:

> >>>> So, what is the problem with calling those who subscribe to
> >>>> Darwin's theory evolutionist? It seems natural enough.

> >>> I think the term "scientist" is preferable.

> >> So, anyone who advocates evolution is a scientist?

> > More accept than advocate. You don't have to LIKE evolution, merely look at
> > the evidence and admit it exists.

> That's not the issue. Probably 90% of those who subscribe to evolution
> are not scientist. My response was to the statement "I think the term
> 'scientist' is preferable.

Okay, so instead of "scientist" how about "intelligent person?"

[Dan Listermann]

"J.W.D. Wolfe" <" lobo\""@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:_9Qsm.129382$nL7.1...@newsfe18.iad...

I studying the history of biology, you might use "Darwinian" along with
"Lamarckism," but beyond that, as a label for a contemporary, probably not.

.

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:02:09 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in
alt.talk.creationism:

It is amazing to me how willing the science haters are to mislead people
about their beliefs and about what scientists have learned. The depraved
depths of dishonesty that creationists and other science deniers will go
show that their interest is not even in defending a religious dogma, for
their falsehoods are so blatant that anyone can see that they are
enemies of knowledge and warriors against truth as they mock the god
they claim to worship. Fools they are, fools who are proud of their
foolishness. They have nothing to say for themselves, so they rely on
tried and true falsehoods that have been spread from ignorant fool to
ignorant fool to persuade themselves that they are not telling lies,
that they are not mocking the god they claim to worship, that they are
not enemies of knowledge.

The DI and AIG are evil. Ignorance is evil. Creationists need to learn
not to be the pawns of evil.

[Mike Painter]

Scientist, bioligist, chemist, etc, etc are common.
Darwinist is not common outside the area where the fundamentalist resists
about the last bit of science left. As a group they are not capable of
realizing that they have, for the most part, accepted all the science they
denied in the past.

Had they been active when science was showing that demons did not cause
illness, earthquakes, or any of the other things they*knew* were caused by
the devil, they would have called people by some inane irrelevant name.

Just ask any Galelioist.

[Mike Painter]

Kalkidas wrote:
<snip>

> They prefer the impersonal moniker "evolutionist." To them, it sounds
> more "scientific" than "Darwinist." It's all part of their
> materialistic agenda to reject any notion of persons and
> personalities as authorities. Only impersonal "science" is to have
> any authority. Also, they are well aware that Darwin's ideas are
> wrong and they want to be able to distance themselves from him when
> the big bluff of "origin of species by chance mutation and natural
> selection" is finally swept into the dustbin of history.

This is the same argument used when someone suggested the Earth was not the
center of the universe, that disease was not caused by demons, and that the
devil caused lightening. They had, as absolute proof, what was written in
the bible.
These are the same people who brought the Jew into Europe because the bible
forbade interest on money.

In the near future they will, for the most part, accept evolution as they
have the other sciences.

And they do this without question. For thousands of years, based on
observation and the god given *fact* that the earth is the center of the
universe, it has been possible to predict the position of stars, planets,
and eclipses to the minute.
Clearly a True Believer should accept the bible and realize that science
used some trick to transform (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) the equations to a
non earth centered universe.

[Sla#s]

Ah yes - more than two syllables - you have a point!

Slatts

[Dan Listermann]

"Desertphile" <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote in message
news:07k7b5lac1ossr912...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 20:07:36 -0400, "J.W.D. Wolfe" <"
> lobo\""@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Louann Miller wrote:
>> > "J.W.D. Wolfe" <" lobo\""@gmail.com> wrote in news:8Uysm.72309$Y83.9934
>> > @newsfe21.iad:
>
>> >>>> So, what is the problem with calling those who subscribe to
>> >>>> Darwin's theory evolutionist? It seems natural enough.
>
>> >>> I think the term "scientist" is preferable.
>
>> >> So, anyone who advocates evolution is a scientist?
>
>> > More accept than advocate. You don't have to LIKE evolution, merely
>> > look at
>> > the evidence and admit it exists.
>
>> That's not the issue. Probably 90% of those who subscribe to evolution
>> are not scientist. My response was to the statement "I think the term
>> 'scientist' is preferable.
>
> Okay, so instead of "scientist" how about "intelligent person?"
>
>

"Rational person" works too!

.

[Ernest Major]

In message <_9Qsm.129382$nL7.1...@newsfe18.iad>, J.W.D. Wolfe <"
lobo\""@gmail.com> writes

It is acceptable. The usage is different, and is paralleled by words
such as Galilean, Newtonian, Einsteinian, Maxwellian, etc.
--
alias Ernest Major

[Dan Listermann]

"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:k1k7b55bb1g5jiv6u...@4ax.com...

Religion, without exception, is evil.

.

[Mike Lyle]

As usual with language, context is the key. In fact, as we've seen here
before, no less a person than Dawkins _does_ use the expressions
"Darwinism" and "Darwinian". See the first section of Chapter 4 of _The
God Delusion_ for several examples, but there are others. (I'll bow, as
ever, to expert knowledge, but my guess is that he doesn't use the words
in scientific papers _except_ in an historical context.)

That, however, does _not_ acquit creationists who use the words of an
attempt to delude their hearers (or, indeed, themselves) as to the
nature of evolutionary biology. Sure, some of them are perfectly
innocent; but others are as guilty as hell.

This question always makes me think of the distinction in US political
discourse between "Democrat Party" and "Democratic Party". If I use the
wrong one, it's just because I'm an innocently ignorant foreigner; but
if a Republican shock jock uses it, then it's a calculated insult.
(Personally, I think Democrats should draw its sting by deliberately not
minding, but my opinion is irrelevant.)

--
Mike.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:07:46 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Dan Listermann"
<d...@listermann.com>:

>"Untestable conjecture?" Try "flaming ass fantasy."

I stand by my comment. Unless you'd like to post your proof
that it's a fantasy? No? Didn't think so. Just as belief
doesn't demonstrate existence, disbelief doesn't demonstrate
nonexistence. That's why science is mute on the subject.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[J.W.D. Wolfe]

Desertphile wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:59:11 -0300, Nashton <na...@no.ca> wrote:
>
>> J.W.D. Wolfe wrote:
>>> I have noticed that several people have take the term
>>> "Darwinist" as insulting and offensive.
>>>
>>> Why is this? After all those who advocate evolution
>>> are in a similiar vein to those advocating socalism.
>>> They are socialist. Those who desire communist are
>>> communist, marxist, whoever supports capitalism are
>>> capitalist.
>>>
>>> So, what is the problem with calling those who subscribe to
>>> Darwin's theory evolutionist? It seems natural enough.
>
> Appears Mental.
>
>> Mainly because of insecurity. Associating the fragile and useless ToE
>> with one particular person and all his attributes, at least at a
>> subconscious level, is far less desirable than associating it with real,
>> useful, hard and experimentally repeatable science. Hence the fact that
>> it carries a pejorative meaning and "insulting" to some.
>>
>> My 2 cents.
>
> You giving an opinion about science is like a Ku Klux Klan member
> giving an opinion about black people.
>

I've lived in the south for thirty eight of my fifty five years.
I've never seen a cross burning, klan march or a klansman. My
question is where are they?
>

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:49:31 -0400, "J.W.D. Wolfe" <" lobo\""@gmail.com>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

Out of fashion and illegal. There are actually cops who will enforce
that law these days, unlike the days of Jim Crow. Now, we need the
Republicans to remember that they were the party that opposed racism at
one time.

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:49:23 -0400, "Dan Listermann"
<d...@listermann.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

Possibly, but religious people are good and evil in roughly the same
proportion as everyone else. Albert Schweitzer may have thought that he
was motivated by religion to do the good that he did, but I suspect that
he would have been every bit as wonderful a human being without it.

[Dan Listermann]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message

news:v6v7b55vqn1ast4ft...@4ax.com...

Is science mute on the subject of Leprechauns too?

.

[Dan Listermann]

"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message

news:lp18b5tpvd0l3llof...@4ax.com...

Let me rephrase my comment. Religion, being superstition without exception,
is evil.

.

[heekster]

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:18:03 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:

You haven't been paying attention. They call themselves "Republicans"
now. Sometimes "Birthers" or "teabaggers", and they have "tea
parties".

The irrational hatred is still there.

>There are actually cops who will enforce
>that law these days, unlike the days of Jim Crow.

What law is that? Even the Klan and nazis have the right to lawfully
assemble. Doesn't make them any less detestable.

>Now, we need the
>Republicans to remember that they were the party that opposed racism at
>one time.

See above.

When Kennedy was elected in 1960, the Republicans and Democrats seemed
to begin to undergo an ideological parity shift. The Dixiecrats
became Republicans. By the time Goldwater and Johnson were running
against each other, I think the shift was pretty much complete,
although there are yet a few stragglers, on both sides.

[Stuart]

On Sep 17, 7:45 am, "J.W.D. Wolfe" <" lobo\""@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have noticed that several people have take the term
> "Darwinist" as insulting and offensive.
>
> Why is this? After all those who advocate evolution
> are in a similiar vein to those advocating socalism.
> They are socialist. Those who desire communist are
> communist, marxist, whoever supports capitalism are
> capitalist.
>
> So, what is the problem with calling those who subscribe to
> Darwin's theory evolutionist? It seems natural enough.

Hmmm.. Well you can call me an evolutionist-atomist-relativist-
gravitist
if it makes you feel better. But that is a mouthful, isn't it?

Stuart

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:53:44 -0500, heekster <heek...@ifiwxtc.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

I have been paying attention. The number of racists willing to break the
law has shrunk. The number of cops willing to turn a blind eye has
shrunk. We're a long way from perfect, but it's going in the right
direction.

>>There are actually cops who will enforce
>>that law these days, unlike the days of Jim Crow.
>
>What law is that? Even the Klan and nazis have the right to lawfully
>assemble. Doesn't make them any less detestable.

They don't have the right to burn crosses on their neighbor's yards.

>>Now, we need the
>>Republicans to remember that they were the party that opposed racism at
>>one time.
>See above.
>
>When Kennedy was elected in 1960, the Republicans and Democrats seemed
>to begin to undergo an ideological parity shift. The Dixiecrats
>became Republicans. By the time Goldwater and Johnson were running
>against each other, I think the shift was pretty much complete,
>although there are yet a few stragglers, on both sides.

The Civil Rights Act did make the change, but it only happened because
Republicans were willing to open their arms to racists and turn their
back on their party's entire history.

[Desertphile]

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:49:31 -0400, "J.W.D. Wolfe" <"

lobo\""@gmail.com> wrote:

non sequitur

[Robert Camp]

If Leprechauns are similarly posited as untestable phenomena, then yes,

science is mute on the subject.

That doesn’t mean any scientist, or rational individual for that
matter, should fail to consider the overwhelming lack of evidence for
such entities and react with skepticism. It simply means that when
speaking the language of science, as Bob was doing, an understanding of
the limits of the methodology obliges a certain amount of inferential
restraint.

RLC

[William Morse]

Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <pixsm.15937$j34....@newsfe01.iad>,

> "J.W.D. Wolfe" <" lobo\""@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>> Rolf wrote:
>>> Dan Listermann wrote:
>>>> "J.W.D. Wolfe" <" lobo\""@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:mBusm.37141$u76....@newsfe10.iad...

>>>>> I have noticed that several people have take the term
>>>>> "Darwinist" as insulting and offensive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is this? After all those who advocate evolution
>>>>> are in a similiar vein to those advocating socalism.
>>>>> They are socialist. Those who desire communist are
>>>>> communist, marxist, whoever supports capitalism are
>>>>> capitalist.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, what is the problem with calling those who subscribe to
>>>>> Darwin's theory evolutionist? It seems natural enough.
>>>>>

>>>> If you believe in the theory of gravity, do you want to be referred
>>>> to as a "gravitist?"
>>>>
>> >
>>> Of course not, I am a Newtonist, what else? ;-)
>> >
>> I agree, it doesn't sound reasonable.
>>>> .
>>>
>
> Any one going to test that? We could measure Dan with a Newton meter.
>
I second that.

[R. Baldwin]

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote in news:proto-
6E8662.222...@news.panix.com:

Perhaps he was referring to Fig Newtons?

[R. Baldwin]

"Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote in

news:2785a$4ab40ac3$4a53bf9f$12...@FUSE.NET:

Yes. Also on the subject of invisible pink unicorns, car key gnomes, and
fairies.

Science CAN test the supposed empirical consequences of the
supernatural, but the existence or non-existence of the supernatural is
inherently untestable because it is consistent with any conceivable
observation.

[Robert Camp]

On 2009-09-18 11:02:09 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> said:

>
> "J.W.D. Wolfe" <" lobo\""@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:mBusm.37141$u76....@newsfe10.iad...
>>
>> I have noticed that several people have take the term
>> "Darwinist" as insulting and offensive.
>>
>> Why is this? After all those who advocate evolution
>> are in a similiar vein to those advocating socalism.
>> They are socialist. Those who desire communist are
>> communist, marxist, whoever supports capitalism are
>> capitalist.
>>
>> So, what is the problem with calling those who subscribe to
>> Darwin's theory evolutionist? It seems natural enough.
>

> They prefer the impersonal moniker "evolutionist." To them, it sounds more
> "scientific" than "Darwinist." It's all part of their materialistic agenda
> to reject any notion of persons and personalities as authorities. Only
> impersonal "science" is to have any authority. Also, they are well aware
> that Darwin's ideas are wrong and they want to be able to distance
> themselves from him when the big bluff of "origin of species by chance
> mutation and natural selection" is finally swept into the dustbin of
> history.

Wow.

That's quite the twisted morality play you've got going inside your
insecure little universe there. The best part is you've gotten almost
everything wrong. And of that which you've gotten right, it's for the
wrong reasons.

If you actually know enough of this subject to discuss it seriously,
then why not do so? This sniping is unseemly.

RLC

[R. Baldwin]

"J.W.D. Wolfe" <" lobo\""@gmail.com> wrote in news:iGysm.205605
$Qg6....@newsfe14.iad:

> Ralph wrote:
>> Dan Listermann wrote:
>>> "Ralph" <mmma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:a66dnVbVTPqUGC_X...@giganews.com...

>>>> J.W.D. Wolfe wrote:
>>>>> I have noticed that several people have take the term
>>>>> "Darwinist" as insulting and offensive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is this? After all those who advocate evolution
>>>>> are in a similiar vein to those advocating socalism.
>>>>> They are socialist. Those who desire communist are
>>>>> communist, marxist, whoever supports capitalism are
>>>>> capitalist.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, what is the problem with calling those who subscribe to
>>>>> Darwin's theory evolutionist? It seems natural enough.
>>>>>
>>>>

>>>> Probably because it is a derogatory term when used by creationists.
>>>> Also it is a gross error to assume that evolution has not
progressed
>>>> since Darwin's time.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is an understatement. It is like they think that what Darwin
>>> wrote was some sort of scripture like the stuff they worship written
>>> from campfire mumblings of bronze age goat herders.
>>>
> Being called an evolutionist or a Darwinist has the same level of
insult
> as being called a racist.
>>> .
>>>
>>
>>
>> :-)))))).
>>
>

It does? I thought I remembered Dawkins used the term evolutionist in a
favorable sense, with -ist taken in the sense of "practioner" rather
than "adherent". A machinist isn't one who professes belief in machines.

[R. Baldwin]

"J.W.D. Wolfe" <" lobo\""@gmail.com> wrote in news:mBusm.37141$u76.33641
@newsfe10.iad:

>
> I have noticed that several people have take the term
> "Darwinist" as insulting and offensive.

Well, Dawrwin predates the modern synthesis, and evolutionary theory has
evolved since Darwin's time. It would be rather inane for a modern
biologist to self-describe as a Darwinist.

>
> Why is this? After all those who advocate evolution
> are in a similiar vein to those advocating socalism.
> They are socialist. Those who desire communist are
> communist, marxist, whoever supports capitalism are
> capitalist.

Those who advocate pianoism are pianists?

>
> So, what is the problem with calling those who subscribe to
> Darwin's theory evolutionist? It seems natural enough.
>

Darwin's theory has been superseded. Darwin knew nothing of DNA. A modern
evolutionist would practice modern biology and subscribe to the modern
synthesis.

[William Morse]

I agree with you as to the usage distinction between Darwinian and
Darwinist. But it then raises the question: why is it Christians but
Buddhists, Taoists but Confucians?

Yours,

Bill Morse

[odin]

> >> I would add to the terms Evolutionist, Darwinist the word Darwinian.
> >> Does this word likewise unacceptable? Why?
>
> > It is acceptable. The usage is different, and is paralleled by words
> > such as Galilean, Newtonian, Einsteinian, Maxwellian, etc.
>
> I agree with you as to the usage distinction between Darwinian and
> Darwinist. But it then  raises the question: why is it Christians but
> Buddhists, Taoists but Confucians?

> - Show quoted text -

I myself am a Darwinoid.

[Garamond Lethe]

I suppose I should release the fairy I'm keeping in the mason jar, then.
It's not looking well. Probably for the best.

[Oh, wait, nevermind. It was a juvenile leprechaun. My bad.]

[Garamond Lethe]

On 2009-09-18, J.W.D. Wolfe <" lobo\""@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dan Listermann wrote:
>> "J.W.D. Wolfe" <" lobo\""@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:nFPsm.129381$nL7....@newsfe18.iad...
>>> Mike Painter wrote:
>>>> J.W.D. Wolfe" <" lobo\" wrote:
>>>>> I have noticed that several people have take the term
>>>>> "Darwinist" as insulting and offensive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is this? After all those who advocate evolution
>>>>> are in a similiar vein to those advocating socalism.
>>>>> They are socialist. Those who desire communist are
>>>>> communist, marxist, whoever supports capitalism are
>>>>> capitalist.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, what is the problem with calling those who subscribe to
>>>>> Darwin's theory evolutionist? It seems natural enough.
>>>> Nothing is wrong with calling them an evolutionist.
>>>> Calling them a Darwinist is usually done by a fundamnetlaist and is
>>>> usually meant as an insult.
>>>> You rarely hear people called Newtonists,Avogadroists,
>>>> WrightBrotherists,...
>>> None of those nomenclatures are ever heard. But Darwinist is, as is
>>> evolutionist.
>>>
>> Only by creationists.
>>

> What about the word Darwinian. Does this term fall into the same
> category as Darwinist, evolutionist?
>

It depends on what it's modifying. "Darwinian Demon" and "Darwinian
medicine" are both in the glossary of Barton's _Evolution_ textbook.
"Darwinian selection" and "Darwinian evolution" are well-represented
on scholar.google.com.

OTOH "Darwinian Fairytales", while clear, is intentionally (and
successfully) provocative.

[John Wilkins]

In article <QZ_sm.12877$6f4....@newsfe08.iad>, Garamond Lethe
<cartogr...@gFNORDmail.com> wrote:

What /do/ they teach young folk these days? You keep the wee folk in
Klein bottles! Mason jars are for trapping Illuminati.

[Ernest Major]

In message <h91k8...@news7.newsguy.com>, William Morse
<wdNOSP...@verizon.net> writes

Living languages are not logical. It's also Arian, Athanasian, Lutheran,
Zoreastrian and Manichean, but Calvinist, Jainist, Mithraist, Salafist
and Shintoist.

I'd guess that the semantic difference between -ian and -ist is
relatively recent, and that older usages are grandfathered in.
--
alias Ernest Major

[Walter Bushell]

In article <h91k8...@news7.newsguy.com>,
William Morse <wdNOSP...@verizon.net> wrote:

Confucians and Christians follow the leader, but Buddhists and Taoists
are practitioners of a method?

--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.

[John Wilkins]

In article <proto-C7DA01....@news.panix.com>, Walter Bushell
<pr...@panix.com> wrote:

So what are Methodists? :-)

[Walter Bushell]

In article <200920090003065218%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:

The got that name from others as a term of derision for being methodical
in their devotions. Later, they seem to have become just another
denomination with a central organization. That is ministers are sent to
churches by the central authority vs. churches where the minister is
called by the congregation as is the case of the Calvanist lineages,
such as Unitarians.

[Ralph]

Both of those words would be unacceptable to me. The reason is that
creationists use those terms in a derogatory manner.

[heekster]

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 00:03:06 +1000, John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au>
wrote:

Wesleyans.

[heekster]

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:45:46 -0400, "J.W.D. Wolfe" <"
lobo\""@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>I have noticed that several people have take the term
>"Darwinist" as insulting and offensive.
>
>Why is this? After all those who advocate evolution
>are in a similiar vein to those advocating socalism.
>They are socialist. Those who desire communist are
>communist, marxist, whoever supports capitalism are
>capitalist.
>
>So, what is the problem with calling those who subscribe to
>Darwin's theory evolutionist? It seems natural enough.

I do not see any problem.

(wiktionary)
Suffix
-ist
1. Added to words to form nouns denoting:
1. One who follows a principle or system of belief.
Marxist, deist
Note, these are related to -ism, e.g. Marxism, deism
(/wiktionary)

Darwinism is defined to be "a theory of biological evolution developed
by Charles Darwin, and others."* From the above, it seems that a
Darwinist is one who follows the principles as defined by the theory
of biological evolution, otherwise known as Darwinism.

Darwinists would be a subset of the group, scientists, a scientist
being defined as below:

scientist - 1. One whose activities make use of the scientific
method to answer questions regarding the measurable universe. A
scientist may be involved in original research, or make use of the
results of the research of others.

There may be a problem with ignorant creationists ( I apologize for
the redundancy) who use the term, Darwinist in a pejorative manner, to
attack things and persons which they do not, or willfully refuse to,
understand.

* American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1969.

[heekster]

So, if someone called you , Ralph, in a derogatory manner, your name
would become unacceptable to you for the exact same reason?