I am a theist and an evolutionist, to be sure, but the combined term makes no sense to me.
The rector has come out, in a quiet way, as an evolutionist.
Thus, to Spencer, the evolutionist theory contains no immorality.
Darwin himself felt a great difference in looking at variation as an evolutionist and as a systematist.
But if we grant this second demand, the evolutionist has a third in store for us.
I think one can, and so evidently does the evolutionist, or he would not talk about evolution.
Will the evolutionist be satisfied with this explanation, or will he suggest some other?
These two views are conveniently described as revolutionist and evolutionist.
The evolutionist not only uses his imagination but claims the right to do so.
Is it less foolish for an evolutionist to isolate man's emotions, feelings, and thoughts?