Since I am usually around sane people, “evolutionist” was not a word I heard of until I started a Quora Space evolvopedia at the beginning of 2021. The first time I heard the word my reaction was “I am not an evolutionist. What an awkward thing to say.” However, I could not pinpoint right away why being called an “evolutionist” felt awkward; or I should say, I sensed the reason, but I couldn’t put it into words.
If I wanted to know more about the universe started, I would make use of multiple reputable sources to study it and try to comprehend what the Big Bang theory says.
If I wanted to understand how the wave-particle duality of light works, again, I’d read from multiple resources to learn what the wave-particle duality of light is.
The origin of species is not any different. All I know about evolution is what those resources say. I am not an “evolution” fanatic, or someone rooting for “evolution” to be the truth.
I am accepting the evolutionary theory not because I am an evolutionist, but because I am sensible.
Britannica On Its Own Not Enough
I find the history of religions most interesting. I love watching documentaries about how religious books were compiled, how religions evolved, and what religious leaders don’t want us to know.
For example, recently I discovered in Britannica:
The Prophet Muhammad once recognized these three as goddesses [Al-lat, Manat, Uzza] but a new revelation led him to abrogate the approving verses he had earlier recited and to abandon his attempt to placate Meccan pagans.
You can read the full article here: Al-Lāt | Arabian deity
Britannica is a reputable resource. Therefore, for Britannica to accept to have such controversial information in their encyclopedia, they must have strong evidence to support the said information.
However, Britannica is not enough.
The proposition that Prophet Mohammed had removed verses from the Quran is an extraordinary piece of information. Accordingly, until I get confirmation from other reputable resources, I am not convinced of the truth of the information.
And there is this so-called Holy Books with extraordinary claims, supernatural beings, and a not-so-appealing god.
However, as you know, the Holy Books provide no evidence, and it is impossible to crosscheck anything written in them. Are we expected to take the words of anonymous writers from hundreds of years ago at their face value? If the Holy Books are genuine, how would the fake ones be like?
Wouldn’t a magician of the 21st century make an excellent prophet two thousand years ago?
To be honest the word “atheist” has the same effect on me as “evolutionist”. Calling myself an atheist feels awkward, so I never do. The word has no meaning to me.
I presume any person of reason would reject revelation as a source of divine knowledge whether they are atheist or not.
Of course, deep in my heart, I want the existence of a just, moral, friendly, and intelligent god. I don’t want all this to have an end, so I am awaiting evidence for a god.
Some people can call me an evolutionist, anti-geocentrist, some other, atheist, however, I call myself, as you may have already assumed, a rationalist.