Evolution or Naturalism. What is best?

[Furrowed Brow]

Recently I have referred to myself as an evolutionist. It seems an easy label to accept, and it sets me apart from Creationist and IDers. However I also subscribe to general relativity, and besides from the awkwardness of the language I would not refer to myself as a general relativist. Nor would I go to the effort of calling myself a quantum mechanist.

Have evolutionists already given up too much ground by accepting this label. Does it turn the logical possibility of another alternative into a controversy that is not really a scientific controversy. Have the opponents of evolution already won a semantic victory. Making what is a political debate look like a scientific debate.

Should evolutionist reject this label; instead choosing another label like Scientific naturalism? The debate would then be characterised as naturalism v supernaturlism.

[Confused]

Recently I have referred to myself as an evolutionist. It seems an easy label to accept, and it sets me apart from Creationist and IDers. However I also subscribe to general relativity, and besides from the awkwardness of the language I would not refer to myself as a general relativist. Nor would I go to the effort of calling myself a quantum mechanist.

Have evolutionists already given up too much ground by accepting this label. Does it turn the logical possibility of another alternative into a controversy that is not really a scientific controversy. Have the opponents of evolution already won a semantic victory. Making what is a political debate look like a scientific debate.

Should evolutionist reject this label; instead choosing another label like Scientific naturalism? The debate would then be characterised as naturalism v supernaturlism.

By assuming scientific naturalism, we would still be referring to evolution via natural selection and adaption. It is the same thing, just different words. The concepts would be the same premises.

ID and creationists have been attempting to do exacly what you just said. Making this into a policial debate under the guise of a scientific debate. But the whole issue rests on the fact that ID and creationism isn't science. This is why they continue to alter their definitions of ID to "evolve" it into what they may consider a science. They can't convince science that ID is a science, so instead they attempt to convince the courts that it is.

In regards to accepting evolution and possibly rejecting an alternative scientific theory, that is the point of testing and retesting to ensure the validity of a theory. Case in point: Ptolemaic astronomy. After centuries of viability, it was eventually rejected. The evolutionary theory, as with every theory, despite its reliability today, can be rejected tomorrow should we find alternative explanations that are more robust than the current one. The scientific method ensures that all theories are tentative adn are forever subjected to reexamination. So I don't feel that by adhering to the evolutionary theory, science ignores alernative theories. But if we change the title of the theory while still encompassing the same tenets of the theory, all we have effectively done is copy creationists when they kept their tenents but put it under a new name: ID.

[micatala]

Recently I have referred to myself as an evolutionist. It seems an easy label to accept, and it sets me apart from Creationist and IDers. However I also subscribe to general relativity, and besides from the awkwardness of the language I would not refer to myself as a general relativist. Nor would I go to the effort of calling myself a quantum mechanist.

Have evolutionists already given up too much ground by accepting this label. Does it turn the logical possibility of another alternative into a controversy that is not really a scientific controversy. Have the opponents of evolution already won a semantic victory. Making what is a political debate look like a scientific debate.

Should evolutionist reject this label; instead choosing another label like Scientific naturalism? The debate would then be characterised as naturalism v supernaturlism.

I think it is best not to refer to oneself as an 'evolutionist'. It only plays into the hands of creationists who seek to obfuscate and mischaracterize evolution and why people accept evolution as a fact. Creationists typically try to claim that people 'believe in' evolution through some sort of irrational faith, often specifically because they want to reject the Christian faith. In essence, the view acceptance of evolution as motivated by an anti-Christian bias.


Scientific Naturalism, on the other hand, seems to me to not be appropriate either, as this term would encompass all sciences, not just biology or evolution. I think it is fair to say physicists, chemists, astronomers, etc. are really all scientific naturalists. Some may also be what I believe would be called metaphysical or ontological naturalists as well, but not all, and this is not necessary to practice the scientific (or methodological) naturalism.

Those who accept evolution, I think, should acknowledge that they are accepting 'scientific naturalism' but I think should also be clear to distinguish this from the metaphysical naturalism which would say essentially that scientific naturalism is not only the only valid way to do science, but also the only legitimate form of pursuing knowledge of any kind.

I don't really have another one word 'label' to suggest. I typically say that I am a person who 'accepts the fact of evolution.'

[otseng]

I think in general labels can be mischaracterizing, misleading, and misused. But, it's still a necessity in order to avoid using paragraphs to describe someone's position. But, to define someone's viewpoint with one or two words certainly does not present the full picture.

Evolution, evolutionist, theory of evolution, fact of evolution, etc. What does it really mean? Or for that matter, what does creation, creationist, or creationism really mean?

I think Scientific Naturalism is a redundant term. Pretty much science nowadays has a foundation of naturalism. And Scientific Supernaturalism doesn't mean much.

But, debates between naturalism and supernaturalism I think would have value. This is pretty much where the fundamental differences lie between the two major positions.

[Jose]

Well said, otseng.

While short-hand labels often mis-characterize, they are easier to use in conversation than accurate, but cumbersome descriptions would be. In the current context, "evolutionist" seems to refer to "one who accepts evolution." As such, it should be independent of the reasons for their acceptance--from "sounds good to me" to a careful analysis of all of the evidence.

But is a physicist someone who "accepts physics," or someone who studies it? Is a geneticist someone who accepts genetics, or someone who studies it? Someone who studies evolution may be an evolutionary biologist, a molecular biologist, an ecologist, a geologist, a paleontologist, and anthropologist, etc. The terms are messy at best.

"Naturalism," however, is an "ism." Adding "ism" to a word is supposed to make it refer to a philosophy, like creationism, evolutionism, scientism, Raelianism, catastrophism, supernaturalism, etc.

Perhaps, otseng, you are right that the fundamental question is between naturalism and supernaturalism. But I'd prefer to cast it as a discussion about the presence of the supernatural, or the validity of considering primarily evidence from the natural world in developing theories of cause-and-effect, or some such. In my opinion, it's hard to "debate" philosophies, but extraordinarily easy to speak at length while doing so. After all, no philosophy can be shown to be "right."

I'd prefer to focus on individuals' reasons for preferring a particular philosophy--for accepting the presence of supernatural entities, or for rejecting them, or for finding that one's time is entirely consumed wrestling merely with evidence from the natural world.