Why Evillusionists don’t want to be called that.

Why Evillusionists don’t want to be called that.

Stephen B. Lyndon, DDS writes a blog at www.evillusion.net  and several books about his change from being a neo-Darwinian to a discussion about the scientific validity of evolution.  I agree with much of what he has written and I am especially intrigued by his many discussions with avid evolutionists who refuse to accept any questioning of their premeditated beliefs.

He writes on his blog: “Evolution believers universally hate that term.  It’s commonly used by creationists and anti-evolution arguers to refer to evolution supporters.  And it’s a term that is commonly detested by them.  Evolution believers somehow think it represents them as “religious”, probably because of the       –ist suffix.  They see it as similar to the names of some religions such as Bapt-ist or Method-ist.  Every time I got a complaint for the usage of the term evolutionist, I asked what they would like to be called.  I never got an answer.  Never.”  I have encountered this same problem so I thought I should explore a reasonable rational explanation of the terminology.



  1. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

synonyms: Darwinism · natural selection

  1. the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.

“the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution”

synonyms: development · advancement · growth · rise · progress · progression · expansion · extension · unfolding · transformation · adaptation · modification · revision · reworking · reconstruction · recasting · change · transmogrification · evolvement

  1. chemistry

the giving off of a gaseous product, or of heat.

  1. a pattern of movements or maneuvers.

“silk ribbons waving in fanciful evolutions”


NOUN   Informal, derogatory

  1. a follower of a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement.

“you can’t be born an ist”



  1. a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection.


  1. relating to the theories of evolution and natural selection.

“an evolutionist model”


Under Evolution part 3 and 4 probably does not apply, but when you put the other sections together, it clearly seems to indicate that evolutionist means what it means: “A follower of a distinctive practice.”  And what is the practice: take your pick from choice 1 or 2.

Dr. Lyndon has gone head to head (or probably toe) with many expounders of evolution on several of their premier websites (i.e.  www.richarddawkins.net  ).  He gets the same responses from this group that I get from those who troll my blog sites and Facebook.

“….Calilasseia.  This person is quite famous in online evolution circles.  He is a pretty big hero and attack dog, and is called on when evolution believers are having trouble debating their opponents.

“  Now, if there is one guaranteed way for a creationist to establish that he or she is here for no other reason than to propagandist for a doctrine, it’s the deployment of that most viscerally hated of words in the lexicon, namely, evolutionist. I have posted about this so often here……… now is the time to nail this one to the ground with a stake through its heart once and for all.

There is no such thing as an “evolutionist”. Why do I say this?  Simple. Because the word has become thoroughly debased through creationist abuse thereof, and in my view, deserves to be struck from the language forever.  For those who need the requisite education, there exist evolutionary biologists, namely the scientific professionals who devote decades of their lives to understanding the biosphere and conducting research into appropriate biological phenomena, and those outside that specialist professional remit who accept the reality-based, evidence-based case that they present in their peer reviewed scientific papers for their postulates. The word “evolutionist” is a discoursive elision, erected by creationists for a very specific and utterly mendacious purpose, namely to suggest that valid evolutionary science is a “doctrine”, and that those who accept its postulates do so merely as a priori “assumptions”.  This is manifestly false, as anyone who has actually read the peer reviewed scientific literature is eminently well placed to understand. The idea that there exists some sort of “symmetry” between valid, evidence-based, reality-based science (evolutionary biology) and assertion-laden, mythology-based doctrine (creationism) is FALSE. Evolutionary biology, like every other branch of science, tests assertions and presuppositions to destruction, which is why creationism was tossed into the bin 150 years ago. When creationists can provide methodologically rigorous empirical tests of their assertions, the critical thinkers will sit up and take notice.

Furthermore, with respect to this canard, does the acceptance of the scientifically educated individuals on this board, of the current scientific paradigm for gravity make them “gravitationists”? Does their acceptance of the evidence supporting the germ theory of disease make them “microbists”? Does their acceptance of the validity of Maxwell’s Equations make them “electromagnetists”? Does their acceptance of the validity of the work of Planck, Bohr, Schrödinger, Dirac and a dozen others in the relevant field make them “quantumists”? Does their acceptance of the validity of the astrophysical model for star formation and the processes that take place inside stars make them “stellarists”? If you are unable to see the absurdity inherent in this, then you are in no position to tell people here that professional scientists have got it wrong, whilst ignorant Bronze Age nomads writing mythology 3,000 years ago got it right.”

Therefore, they do not like the term and do not opine as to an appropriate term to use.  I personally prefer evillusionists.  It is a term I coined several years ago and Dr. Lyndon follows suit with it using this explanation: “a term I coined to describe what evolution really is: an illusion.  Ev-illusion makes people, and particularly students, think they see what really isn’t there.  Evolution is much like the works of an illusionist or magician who can fool an audience into thinking a certain event happened that really didn’t.  Once the audience is fooled with the first event, they can then be fooled by quite absurd and seemingly impossible follow up events” I take it a step further and call them evillusitonists for evil- being very evil in trying to make their entire worldview (which is an illusion) the dominant belief in there and everyone’s concept of life as we are supposed to know it.

I could make the same point that “creationists” is a viscerally hated propaganda term, a discursive elision, erected by ev-illusionists for a very specific and utterly mendacious purpose, namely to suggest that valid biblical science is a “doctrine”, and that those who accept its postulates do so merely as a priori “assumptions”.  


2 thoughts on “Why Evillusionists don’t want to be called that.

  1. Pingback: Lulu Gemberling
    1. I have no idea what you are talking about. The most overused words today is ‘transparency”- what the heck does that really mean, especially in relationship to this article on my blog. ‘Accountability’, yep, I am accountable for everything I write and quote in my writings. If you are making a point please explain further.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.