The terms "Physicalist", "Naturalist", and "Darwinist", and "Atheism" are not generally considered orthodox theistic terms, although in a debate between the atheist and the theist often use these terms to communicate. I asked, INITIALLY, if other, please explain. Your protestations seem to indicate your refusal to claim your worldview as atheistic, darwinist, naturalist, or physicalist as descriptive of what you do believe as a view of the world.
Well, it is a huge assumption of anyone to believe that they know anything about my belief system or worldview just because I happen to be a scientist for whom knowledge and understanding of evolution is a fundamental part of my work.
Assigning belief systems such as "Physicalist", "Naturalist", "Darwinist", or "Atheism" has very much the tone of assigning nutty religious beliefs to me. "Physicalist"? I don't know what that's supposed to mean. "Naturalist"? I'd normally think of that as some sort of outdoor biologist, but in this context, it seems to suggest some sort of Gaia worshipper. "Darwinist"? Obviously, the suffix "ist" was attached to the name of a prominent scientist to convey the impression that scientists who continue his work are engaging in some sort of religion; it certainly is not a term for any scientific discipline, and it describes no belief system of which I am aware. And, last, "atheist"--well, atheists act like atheism is a religion, so, clearly, calling someone that IS an attempt to characterize them as having some sort of nutty quasi-religious belief.
Your assertion of me being "way to wacked out" study science. You may be right. I do not hold a PhD in any of the natural sciences. What I do hold is a BS in Biology and Chemistry, MS in Biology, with my dissertation "Identification of Pleistocene Fossils from McFaddin Beach, High Island Texas. I hold a doctorate in medicine and did 5 years postdoc in General and Trauma Surgery. I even participated in double blind studies for what used to be Smith-Kline-French Pharmaceutical Corp. studying H2 receptor antagonists in the development of anti ulcer and reflux esophagitis treatment.
That said, you may still assert me being unqualified to study science...that remains to be seen.
Please don't take offense--but to me, most of what MDs do in the area of research barely qualifies as research. I recognize the necessity of comparing different treatments to see which one is more effective, but earth-shattering science, it is not. Ugh...give me basic research, any day.
When I described people who adhere to nutty quasi-religions as being too whacked-out to study science, I was actually referring to people like this. Unless you're into New Age beliefs and you do things like go into the woods to cry over trees, I think it's safe to assume I wasn't referring to you (or anyone else on FreeRepublic, for that matter).
I was simply trying to assertain how you reconsile invarient, abstract entities, such as consciousness, numbers, logic, rational thought, reason, love, hate, beauty, etc. to a worldview of the physicalist (if you are not a phyicialist, or one who believes Darwins theory is sufficient to explain it all (darwinist), or an atheist)).
You are correct...I do not know you, but you seem bright. I am just talking to you...hopefully without invective
The truth is, I don't spend a lot of time thinking about abstract concepts, such as what is consciousness. I'm not entirely sure that science can answer that, and I'm focused on thinking about the questions that science can answer. And on how I can get funding to answer those questions, although in the near future, I won't be doing research.
Regarding MD's, I would agree with you.
Most of us do not spend a lot of time thinking about things like consciousness and other universal, invarient, abstract entities. But some do. I think you might find J.P.Moreland's book "Argument From Consciousness". It is fascinating what those research philosophers write.
Another book, if you are interested, is "Natural Law". It is very applicable to understanding scientific method.
I am somewhat well read in Nature Worship, as opposed to Naturalism and New Age theology, but only to refute the claims of such. You are correct in stating Gaia worship as associated with the New Age Movement (which comes as many names..Age of Aquarius, Christ Consciousness, and good old simple occultism...but that is another discussion).
As a research scientist and devotee (not meant religious) of Darwins Theory of Evolution, and one who purports its truth and usefulness, I once was of a similar opinion. During the writing of my thesis I read a lot of comparative paleontology...most prominent among that group was a Harvard professor named George Gaylord Simpson...perhaps you have heard of him. Anyway, one day while reading one of his papers on Comparative palenontology of species Equus, he bold asserted, and this is a substantive quote, "Given enough time, if one were to place a chimpanzee in front of a typewriter, and that chimp struck 60 elements per minute, given enough time he would reproduce completely and perfectly the entire works of Shakespeare." It struck me that he had made a statement of an article of faith. Stephen Jay Gould, rest his soul, was a Harvard comparative paleontologist said, substantively, "We believe in Darwinism, not because there is evidence to support it, but to do otherwise would allow a divine fot into the door,..and that we cannot allow." Darwin, himself, had strong doubts about his own theory.
Anyway, good luck with your work.
Could not the predictive ability of your working theory also be predicted by the theory that all the ADAPTIVE ability you see and base predictions on is
“built into” the organisms you study, and not a matter of adding these abilities through ADDITION of information through mutation?
Aren’t you just observing adaptation and attributing that to “evolution”?