I am a proponent of the theory of evolution by natural selection, but I don't consider myself a Darwinist.

The whole thing is weird to me. Besides evolution and the big bang, there are essentially no scientific theories on which the public feels compelled to take (or, I presume, justified in taking) a side. I don't consider myself a proponent of the Schrödinger model of the atom or the Einsteinian model of space-time. In the same way, I don't consider myself a proponent of the theory of evolution.

I'm not a biologist or biochemist, and anybody that thinks me some sort of authority on evolutionary theory (i.e. worth debating on the topic) is certainly not going to be straightened out, even if I refer them to competent biologists or their books.

They've become wedge issues. Most religious people I know believe in natural selection and the big bang. Granted, I know a few that think it's a lie, but most simply believe that the natural laws are how god operates.

Evolution (natural selection) merely describes how something changes. It does not deal with the thing in itself. The "why" and "what" of reality.

At the core of all religions is an extremely personal quest of self-awareness and self-actualization. An inquiry into the "Cosmic Consciousness" as Einstein put it.

People who relegate religion in all its forms to the domain of quacks, dependent thinkers, and zealots, and promote science in its place, do not sufficiently understand religion or science.

It depends on what you mean by a 'Darwinist'. If by a Darwinist, you mean someone who agrees with everything Darwin said, then no. Darwin got some things wrong which subsequent science has corrected.

If by Darwinist you mean someone who thinks that Darwin made a significant contribution to human understanding, then hell yeah I'm a Darwinist.

If by Darwinist you mean that I'm some kind of fervent advocate of natural selection and ignore the importance of other forms of selection - sexual and cultural - then no. Sexual selection plays an important part and cultural selection is an idea worth exploring.

If by Darwinist, you mean the straw man concoction of some loopy Intelligent Design advocate or creationist pap mumbler, then a loud answer in the negative may be audible - if you still have your ears open (most of them have their ears blocked and it's not to stop their brain cell falling out).

Something about the word Darwinist just rubs me the wrong way. I believe he was correct (or, at least, MOSTLY correct), but I don't want to ascribe myself to him like he's some set of ideals. I guess it's because it has a strangely religious sound to me... darwinIST... buddhIST, methodIST, baptIST, etc.

Rapist, arsonist, polygamist...

In that context, it is one who practices rape, arson, or polygamy. "Darwinist" is used more in the same vein as "Buddhist", one who believes in the set of principles described by Darwin/Buddha.

But what if you practice Darwin then?

<insert mom related to about your joke>

That's odd I could have sworn I used more words in that sentance...