Darwinists? and other names for "evos"

There is a further, perhaps more subtle, reason why "darwinist" is unacceptable to a lot of biologists. When Eldredge and Gould published their theory on Punctuated Equilibrium in the 70's, there was a great deal of opposition for one reason or another. In defense, Eldredge especially started using the term "darwinist" or "ultradarwinist" to characterize his opponents, relating the term to an ultrareductionist and ultragradualist approach to evolution. IMO, he was over the top, and used the term as something of a strawman - I don't think such a person actually exists. However, he continues to use the term as a pejorative in his more recent writings (see, for example, his 1999 book "The Pattern of Evolution"). So there is some sensitivity in the community to the term based on this.

To be honest, I have no certain knowledge concerning use of the term before the PE debates began I would venture to guess that it had no negative connotations in the past as it seems to now. I do know that many of the biologists of my acquaintence object to the term (when they think about it at all) on that basis. The way the term is used in the debates is Darwinism = pure phyletic gradualism. Which, of course, is why I characterized Eldredge's use of the word as a strawman - I don't know of any evo biologist that considers the original darwinian idea of slow, incremental modification to be the exclusive mode and tempo of evolution.

I think we need to move discussion of PE, the Cambrian transition, etc to another (probably pre-existing) thread. It is more than a bit off-topic for this one. I don't disagree with Coragyps and Schraf, among others, who say that use of the term darwinist by the "loyal opposition" is unacceptable because of the "-ist" connotations placed on it. Meaning that construction is usually reserved for the followers of a particular dogma or ideology, which biology manifestly is not. Its use in the internal battles over PE is another reason, but unrelated to the first. As I mentioned, and PaulK pegged nicely, the epithet is a strawman, whatever "side" of the PE debate you come down on.

I dunno, C. I think evolutionist is almost acceptable, if you translate it as "advocate for evolution", rather than "dogmatic believer in evolution". Of course, the latter is how the creationists use it...

Really? Fascinating. I, on the other hand, have met and worked with both professional field and theoretical evolutionary biologists, and conversed with a fair selection of "amateurs" both live and on the net. In additiion, I read extensively in both the professional and open-published literature. I'll freely admit I've seen a lot of occasionally quite acrimonious debate among this crew over the details of evolution. In fact, I've engaged in some myself (an argument over the long-term ecological stability of the Cerro Kum concession, and another over the ultimate causes of the Posoltega lahar spring to mind). In my own field, there continues to be an often nasty argument between the advocates of Wilson vs Brown vs Whittaker concerning ecological equilibrium (I'm a dynamic disequilibrium-ist myself). The point being that IF your contention that we all adhere dogmatically to a "belief in evolution" is true, then there shouldn't be any argument at all, n'est-ce pas? Every single piece of evidence or bit of theory someone presents is argued over, fought over, dissected, and - sometimes - grudgingly accepted. Doesn't sound very dogmatic, to me.Even if you choose to not to persue a career in biology following on your degree, I would urge you to attend at least one symposium where a controversial paper is presented, for entertainment value if nothing else. I'd be surprised if you can come away from one of those still considering "evolutionists" to be dogmatic...

You're probably right. I was trying to draw a (perhaps unecessary) distinction between the peer-reviewed literature such as Nature or Conservation Biology, collections of essays and other scientific writings, such as Wilson's (ed) "Biodiversity" and "Biodiversity II" or Mayr's "Evolution and the Diversity of Life", and more "popular" writing such as Dawkins' books, etc. Maybe there isn't a need.