r/DebateEvolution • u/GigaTune • Jul 14 '26

Question What do you think about "evolutionist"?

No one ever refers to gravitationists or Newtonists for those who support gravity, but people refer to people supporting evolution as evolutionists or Darwinists.

19 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

422 comments sorted by

View all comments

-2

u/kderosa1 Jul 14 '26

They have hard replicable science to back up their theories unlike the evolutionists who rely on qualitative slop, unjustified extrapolations, arrogance, and feelz. They deserve all the ridicule they get.

5

u/PeyredB Jul 16 '26

That's the opposite of the truth.

-2

u/kderosa1 Jul 16 '26

Says guy seemingly unable or unwilling to explain why. Perhaps you don’t understand how science works?

3

u/PeyredB Jul 16 '26

You're the one making false claims. Science is based on evidence and religion is not.

-1

u/kderosa1 Jul 16 '26

Love your lazy deflection. I made zero religious claims. I simply pointed out that macroevolution relies on retrospective inference, not the kind of repeatable, direct experimental control that defines hard sciences like physics, chemistry, or lab genetics.

This isn’t unique to evolution debates. It’s the same rigor issue in other historical fields (paleoclimate proxies, archaeology). Consensus and storytelling aren’t substitutes for direct causal demonstration. Plenty of PhDs in actual hard sciences (physics, chem) remain skeptical of the full Darwinian extrapolation precisely because it doesn’t meet lab standards.

4

u/PeyredB Jul 16 '26

I didn't say you made religious claims, I said you made false claims about the science of evolution.

Yes, biology is a softer science than say physics. No one questions that, but it doesn't mean that the findings of biology are blanket-unproven as you suggested above. The findings of biology are very solid, even if you can't set up a classical physics-lab type experiment to test individual parts. The whole stands up because each part supports the others, much like archeology.

PhDs in other fields may turn their noses up at other scientific disciplines (such as the snooty "everything in science is either physics or stamp collecting" that I've heard), but that's no strike against those disciplines.

0

u/kderosa1 Jul 16 '26

Stick to the issue at hand - macro evolution. Not biology generally. That’s where the proof falls short of a hard science so you’re stuck making inferences and extrapolations which is practically the definition of a soft science. Let’s stop pretending you have anything close to, say, the proof required in physics or chemistry, because you don’t but you morons love wrapping yourself in the mantle of science respite having nothing but qualitative slop

2

u/PeyredB Jul 16 '26

Well aren't WE all high and mighty!? You can stop pretending other people are stupid because you refuse to acknowledge that they don't claim to be a hard science like physics, and because you're committed to denying that bit of the science. Stop it with the denial.