I dislike the very term "evolutionist." In the context in which it's used, the -ist suffix connotes a sense in which evolution (the preceding term) is some unproven or unverifiable concept which may or may not be believed. An -ist suffix itself is innocuous (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-ist) but by and large we only see the term 'evolutionist' presented in contrast to 'creationist' as if they are diametrically opposed. In reality any scientist studying evolution would be properly termed an evolutionary biologist or something similar.

Such wordplay is just another attempt by religious nuts to drag science down to their level so they can refute what they view as challenging their religion. Science and religion are the proverbial apples and oranges, and should be treated as such. There's no reason religion can't accommodate scientific facts, as long as the religious are flexible enough to allow it. If someone isn't flexible in that regard, it signifies they aren't a thinker, which in turns shows that they have no business discussing scientific matters at all.

I know that sounds harsh, but the older I get, the less I am concerned with improving my own life and more concerned with what world I will ultimately leave behind for others. Isaac Asimov famously said, "Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" People who lack the ability to think rationally and who espouse disdain of scientific facts shouldn't be allowed any sway over educational and scientific endeavors.