Even atheists have to live by faith (in their "peer reviewed" journals one supposes) -- a faith that demands that there is no God, and as internally contradictory as the Darwinism is that they use to affirm their faith ...
Why do you assume to know something about my faith? All you know is that I'm a scientist. That tells you nothing about my religious beliefs.
Like exDemMom, I too am a professional biochemist. Unlike her though I have advanced in my career to a place well-beyond simply mixing the buffers, prepping the samples, running the gels, taking the Polaroids, and creating "poster sessions" for coffee break discussions at scientific gatherings.
Hmm, how do you know where I am in my career? I just checked my home page; as I thought, it says nothing about my current career status.
And taking Polaroids? We stopped doing that while I was in grad school, sometime in the 90s.
I also, despite what you try to imply, am quite aware of the current status and reliability of scientific research. No scientific study is perfect; some are utter trash--but that topic, although I am passionate about it, is best left to another discussion. So is the issue of scientific misconduct, which is a topic I care about deeply.
One may observe that what ever they think they know about their biochemistry, they certainly don't rely on Darwin-speak to prop it up.
Within the scientific community, there is no real debate over whether evolution is a real process or not. And the fact that our language isn't peppered with the words "evolution" or "Darwin" is not an indication that the principles of evolution are not being used. They are. It is difficult to even envision how life science research could advance without taking into consideration the many implications of the theory of evolution, because it forms such a fundamental basis of our science.
It appears from your post that you work in a legal firm of some sort, dealing with patent issues. I do not expect someone whose primary exposure to scientific research is at the level of clinical trials to be aware of the evolutionary considerations that guided the research before it entered the clinical trial state. The purpose of clinical trials is not to advance scientific knowledge; it is to procure regulatory approval for a product.
See also "no true Scotsman" fallacy: and argument from authority -- (Heliobacter pylori).
And the fact that our language isn't peppered with the words "evolution" or "Darwin" is not an indication that the principles of evolution are not being used. They are.
Argumentum ad populi now. It could be, you know, that people use the buzzwords based on what they have come to mean in the popular press, which is far removed from the definitions of practitioners in the field; and that the populist usage is meant as a shortcut to real thought, merely to borrow the mantle of supposed intellect and wisdom (cf. "It's not rocket science" even while funding for the space shuttle is being cut, but private sector groups are preparing to fill the void. In that case, significant research is being done, but the esoteric quality is diminishing.)
It is difficult to even envision how life science research could advance without taking into consideration the many implications of the theory of evolution, because it forms such a fundamental basis of our science.
It'd be interesting to hear your examples, as I suspect they would go to the heart of one of the main bones of contention on crevo threads: that of supposed "merely natural selection" with the so-called "macroevolution".
The fracture plane in these discussions seems to be (at least on crevo threads here on FR) that pro-evo people engage in intellectual ad hominem dismissing pro-cre people as morons or worse, and unable to comprehend, let alone synthesize, the essential scientific components behind genetics, natural selection, and evolution; one of the examples used to bolster this is to make fun of the pro-creationists' request for examples of so-called "macro-evolution".
The irony in this, is that when the pro-evolutionists *are* pressed for examples of real uses of evolution within biology, the examples given are of natural selection within a population, and not of what would be called "macro-evolution".
I do not expect someone whose primary exposure to scientific research is at the level of clinical trials to be aware of the evolutionary considerations that guided the research before it entered the clinical trial state.
What "evolutionary considerations that guided the research"? Links or it didn't happen. /wondering if it will get more specific and reproducible than AGW or the 'utility' function in economics>
Cheers!