OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?

[Dave]

Why are so many engineers snookered by Creationism? They grow up
thinking about designs and then they study all the math and the design
techniques and they tend to look at things from the viewpoint of "What
makes it tick?" Generally they do NOT study biology, but they have an
awe for it. Then they happen across a book by one of the dozen or so
nitwit creationists and they are hooked. It seems so natural to expect
that everything MUST have been designed. Heck why not the earth also
just as the Bible says? Then they park their brains entirely and join
the "YEC" (young earth creationist) camp.

Yes the universe is filled with unknowns. Shall every unknown be a
rationale for religious fervor until it is finally understood? When
mankind first captured fire it was no doubt tended and kept safe by
the "priests." Then finally someone discovered that fire could be
created on demand by simply rubbing two sticks together. That was
probably considered witchcraft. How many early men were made to suffer
because they dared to make a fire without the blessing of the tribal
priest? The fact that there are always unknowns does not create the
need for a priesthood. I find it utterly depressing. This is what I am
talking about, a typical engineer:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/Science+&+Medicine/F1D84C44D2FDBC5186256E4E0019F971?OpenDocument&Headline=Engineer+wants+%22intelligent+design%22+taught+in+schools

Which is directly related to this:

http://www.house.state.mo.us/bills041/biltxt/intro/HB0911I.HTM

And here are the scientists who know engineers are morons:

http://web.missouri.edu/~esiwww/evolution.html

Other related links;

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2004/OH/832_critical_analysis_of_evolutio_3_10_2004.asp

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Catalano/box/behe.shtml#reviews

http://www.museum.hu-berlin.de/home.asp?page=http://www.museum.hu-berlin.de/auss/rundgang/saurier_urvogel.asp?lang=1

 

[John Larkin]

On 24 Mar 2004 07:39:14 -0800, galt_57@hotmail.com (Dave) wrote:

Why are so many engineers snookered by Creationism? They grow up
thinking about designs and then they study all the math and the design
techniques and they tend to look at things from the viewpoint of "What
makes it tick?" Generally they do NOT study biology, but they have an
awe for it. Then they happen across a book by one of the dozen or so
nitwit creationists and they are hooked. It seems so natural to expect
that everything MUST have been designed. Heck why not the earth also
just as the Bible says? Then they park their brains entirely and join
the "YEC" (young earth creationist) camp.

Yes the universe is filled with unknowns. Shall every unknown be a
rationale for religious fervor until it is finally understood?

Every unknown is a reason for conjecture.

When
mankind first captured fire it was no doubt tended and kept safe by
the "priests."

"No doubt"? Please explain your evidence.

Then finally someone discovered that fire could be
created on demand by simply rubbing two sticks together. That was
probably considered witchcraft.

"Probably"? You weren't there, and you're making this up.

How many early men were made to suffer
because they dared to make a fire without the blessing of the tribal
priest? The fact that there are always unknowns does not create the
need for a priesthood. I find it utterly depressing. This is what I am
talking about, a typical engineer:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/Science+&+Medicine/F1D84C44D2FDBC5186256E4E0019F971?OpenDocument&Headline=Engineer+wants+%22intelligent+design%22+taught+in+schools

The Intelligent Design concept is not inherently religious and is not
absurd; possibly the strict random-mutation evolutionists are the ones
who lack open-mindedness. It's entirely feasible (I think likely) that
DNA was designed by somebody; that DNA is now not merely a programming
language, but a very clever macro language that works better than
random mutation; that this very universe was created by a being who
lives in a very different universe, and was experimenting with
parameters. But unless solid evidence is found (like a copyright
notice or something) it's premature to teach this in public schools.
But then, there's not a lot of point in teaching the theory of
evolution in public schools, either... it's not of much practical use
to the average citizen.

John

 

[Mike]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 08:30:02 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On 24 Mar 2004 07:39:14 -0800, galt_57@hotmail.com (Dave) wrote:

When
mankind first captured fire it was no doubt tended and kept safe by
the "priests."

"No doubt"? Please explain your evidence.

Then finally someone discovered that fire could be
created on demand by simply rubbing two sticks together. That was
probably considered witchcraft.

"Probably"? You weren't there, and you're making this up.

No he's not. It happened exactly this way in the noted prehistoric
documentary, "Quest for Fire." As I recall, it was later revealed that the
priest who returned from the netherlands with fire later found out that he
was actually sent to retrieve a "Bud Light."

-- Mike --

 

[Emoneg]

"Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5591d176.0403240739.20548844@posting.google.com...
| Why are so many engineers snookered by Creationism?

You are a half wit wanker in search of your own definition of religion
with which to argue shite about the nature of shite.

If I were to tell you that you are a wanker you would not notice and
proceed to witter on about some other subject. You're a wanker. See,
I've wasted my time.

Kindly fuck off and re-create yourself elsewhere.

DNA

 

[Walter Harley]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote in
message news:j8d360pvrvoj1kicika19o7a9nbmvm5mom@4ax.com...

But then, there's not a lot of point in teaching the theory of
evolution in public schools, either... it's not of much practical use
to the average citizen.

It's probably of more practical use than, say, the history of the French
revolution. (Which I also think has practical use.)

One extremely good reason why it should be taught is that it is a powerful
demonstration of how a very simple principle can yield complex results. If
more people understood that intuitively, I think it would change their view
of explanation and of how the world works, not just with regard to evolution
but with regard to almost any complex system.

Another good reason why it should be taught is that it provides a useful way
of understanding many facets of human behavior, and of how the world works.
For instance, if people had a better understanding of evolution, we might
see less antibiotic abuse, and we'd be able to save antibiotics for when
they're actually needed rather than just using viral infections as a
training ground for antibiotic-resistant bacteria. I think it also has
direct bearing on drug addiction and gambling addiction.

At a more advanced level, the theory of evolution is fruitful ground for
learning how to avoid teleological explanations in the pursuit of
philosophy. For instance, a bacterium doesn't become antibiotic-resistant
"in order to" survive antibiotics; rather, it becomes antibiotic resistant
because a series of its ancestors happened to have a trait that help them
resist antibiotics, at a useful time. Coupled with an understanding of
statistics (also a sorely undertaught subject), this subtle distinction
permits much more rigorous thought about the nature of the world.

To me, the idea of a Creator who can envision a simple, graceful, incredibly
powerful generative system such as evolution is much more compelling than
the idea of one who has to paint every pixel. Heck, *I* could paint every
pixel; but I never would have come up with the idea of evolution on my own.
*That's* good engineering, to me. I think people who believe that the world
is too complex or well-worked to have resulted from evolution simply
underestimate evolution. It's sort of like saying "well, gravitation is all
well and good, but there's no way that gravity alone could ever make a whole
bunch of planets all orbit around one star in nice elliptical orbits - that
has to be a sign of an intelligent creator."

 

[Frank Miles]

In article <j8d360pvrvoj1kicika19o7a9nbmvm5mom@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

[snip]

The Intelligent Design concept is not inherently religious and is not
absurd; possibly the strict random-mutation evolutionists are the ones
who lack open-mindedness. It's entirely feasible (I think likely) that
DNA was designed by somebody; that DNA is now not merely a programming
language, but a very clever macro language that works better than
random mutation; that this very universe was created by a being who
lives in a very different universe, and was experimenting with
parameters. But unless solid evidence is found (like a copyright
notice or something) it's premature to teach this in public schools.
But then, there's not a lot of point in teaching the theory of
evolution in public schools, either... it's not of much practical use
to the average citizen.

'Not of much practical use'? Perhaps not in the strictest sense. After
all, you could probably say the same about ideas behind "electricity".
You don't need to know much about electrons or insulators or magnetic
fields to switch channels on a TV set.

It is a powerful idea, though, and is one of the most unifying central
concepts in the biological sciences. If we are to have an educated populace,
even partially competent to think (and vote -- however indirectly) on
developing issues like genetically modified food, how to allocate limited
federal funds to combat rapidly evolving diseases, and whether global warming
warrants a serious response, evolution must be taught.

Back to electronics...

-frank

--

 

[Dirk Bruere at Neopax]

"Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5591d176.0403240739.20548844@posting.google.com...

Why are so many engineers snookered by Creationism? They grow up

They aren't.
You're getting engineers confused with Americans.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org

 

[Roy McCammon]

Are you familiar with the rhetorical
artifice of "begging the question?"

--
local optimization seldom leads to global optimization

my e-mail address is: <my first name> <my last name> AT mmm DOT com

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandSNIP
techTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote (in <j8d360pvrvoj1kicika19o7a9nbmvm5mom@
4ax.com&gt about 'OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on
Wed, 24 Mar 2004:

It's entirely feasible (I think likely) that
DNA was designed by somebody;

I don't know about 'designed', but he was obviously 'created' by Mr and
Mrs Genome.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:54:38 +0000, the renowned John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandSNIP
techTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote (in <j8d360pvrvoj1kicika19o7a9nbmvm5mom@
4ax.com&gt about 'OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on
Wed, 24 Mar 2004:

It's entirely feasible (I think likely) that
DNA was designed by somebody;

I don't know about 'designed', but he was obviously 'created' by Mr and
Mrs Genome.

Seems like you're making some unwarranted assumptions there..

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

Mike wrote:

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 08:30:02 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On 24 Mar 2004 07:39:14 -0800, galt_57@hotmail.com (Dave) wrote:

When
mankind first captured fire it was no doubt tended and kept safe by
the "priests."

"No doubt"? Please explain your evidence.

Then finally someone discovered that fire could be
created on demand by simply rubbing two sticks together. That was
probably considered witchcraft.

"Probably"? You weren't there, and you're making this up.

Probably not, actually. If creating fire would have been considered
'witchcraft' (by the modern definition; a work of evil) anyone creating
fire would have been killed thus hindering further research in the
field.

No he's not. It happened exactly this way in the noted prehistoric
documentary, "Quest for Fire." As I recall, it was later revealed that the
priest who returned from the netherlands with fire later found out that he
was actually sent to retrieve a "Bud Light."

Actually, one returns from the Netherlands with Amstel Light. ;-)

--
Paul Hovnanian mailtoaul@Hovnanian.com
note to spammers: a Washington State resident
------------------------------------------------------------------
I bet the human brain is a kludge. -- Marvin Minsky

 

[Kevin Aylward]

John Larkin wrote:

On 24 Mar 2004 07:39:14 -0800, galt_57@hotmail.com (Dave) wrote:


How many early men were made to suffer
because they dared to make a fire without the blessing of the tribal
priest? The fact that there are always unknowns does not create the
need for a priesthood. I find it utterly depressing. This is what I
am talking about, a typical engineer:


http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/Science+&+Medicine/F1D84C44D2FDBC5186256E4E0019F971?OpenDocument&Headline=Engineer+wants+%22intelligent+design%22+taught+in+schools


The Intelligent Design concept is not inherently religious and is not
absurd;

Agreed.

possibly the strict random-mutation evolutionists are the ones
who lack open-mindedness.

Doubt it. Its the simplest solution.

It's entirely feasible (I think likely)

Yes, feasible, but certainly not likely. To be likely there must be some
compelling evidence. There isn't any evidence.

that
DNA was designed by somebody; that DNA is now not merely a programming
language, but a very clever macro language that works better than
random mutation;

DNA may well not act purely by random mutations, in principle, but that
doesn't imply a creator from that non randomness. Evolution is about
*non* random selection of random traits. The laws of basic physics are
non random. For example, i=cdv/dt is not a random relation. its quite
conceivable that DNA has directed purpose, as explained here,
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/intelligence.html, as darwinian
purpose.

that this very universe was created by a being who
lives in a very different universe, and was experimenting with
parameters.

Yeah, dream on. You know the one, extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence.

But unless solid evidence is found (like a copyright
notice or something) it's premature to teach this in public schools.
But then, there's not a lot of point in teaching the theory of
evolution in public schools, either... it's not of much practical use
to the average citizen.

Not at all. I have already explained that "applied evolutionary
psychology" is "How to pick up a women".
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/malefemale.html, this is very
usefull.


Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Dave wrote:

Why are so many engineers snookered by Creationism? They grow up
thinking about designs and then they study all the math and the design
techniques and they tend to look at things from the viewpoint of "What
makes it tick?" Generally they do NOT study biology, but they have an
awe for it. Then they happen across a book by one of the dozen or so
nitwit creationists and they are hooked. It seems so natural to expect
that everything MUST have been designed. Heck why not the earth also
just as the Bible says? Then they park their brains entirely and join
the "YEC" (young earth creationist) camp.

A solution that is only achievable by postulating an entity that can, do
anything, be everywhere at once, and knows all, doesn't appear to be a
particular useful solution.

Yes the universe is filled with unknowns. Shall every unknown be a
rationale for religious fervor until it is finally understood? When
mankind first captured fire it was no doubt tended and kept safe by
the "priests." Then finally someone discovered that fire could be
created on demand by simply rubbing two sticks together. That was
probably considered witchcraft. How many early men were made to suffer
because they dared to make a fire without the blessing of the tribal
priest? The fact that there are always unknowns does not create the
need for a priesthood. I find it utterly depressing. This is what I am
talking about, a typical engineer:

I'm an engineer.

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html

"That which is mostly observed, is that which replicates the most."

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

Walter Harley wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote in
message news:j8d360pvrvoj1kicika19o7a9nbmvm5mom@4ax.com...
[...] But then, there's not a lot of point in teaching the theory of
evolution in public schools, either... it's not of much practical use
to the average citizen.

It's probably of more practical use than, say, the history of the French
revolution. (Which I also think has practical use.)

One extremely good reason why it should be taught is that it is a powerful
demonstration of how a very simple principle can yield complex results. If
more people understood that intuitively, I think it would change their view
of explanation and of how the world works, not just with regard to evolution
but with regard to almost any complex system.

Another good reason why it should be taught is that it provides a useful way
of understanding many facets of human behavior, and of how the world works.
For instance, if people had a better understanding of evolution, we might
see less antibiotic abuse, and we'd be able to save antibiotics for when
they're actually needed rather than just using viral infections as a
training ground for antibiotic-resistant bacteria. I think it also has
direct bearing on drug addiction and gambling addiction.

At a more advanced level, the theory of evolution is fruitful ground for
learning how to avoid teleological explanations in the pursuit of
philosophy. For instance, a bacterium doesn't become antibiotic-resistant
"in order to" survive antibiotics; rather, it becomes antibiotic resistant
because a series of its ancestors happened to have a trait that help them
resist antibiotics, at a useful time. Coupled with an understanding of
statistics (also a sorely undertaught subject), this subtle distinction
permits much more rigorous thought about the nature of the world.

To me, the idea of a Creator who can envision a simple, graceful, incredibly
powerful generative system such as evolution is much more compelling than
the idea of one who has to paint every pixel. Heck, *I* could paint every
pixel; but I never would have come up with the idea of evolution on my own.
*That's* good engineering, to me. I think people who believe that the world
is too complex or well-worked to have resulted from evolution simply
underestimate evolution. It's sort of like saying "well, gravitation is all
well and good, but there's no way that gravity alone could ever make a whole
bunch of planets all orbit around one star in nice elliptical orbits - that
has to be a sign of an intelligent creator."

The problem with teaching creationism as an alternative to evolution, or
even teaching evolution as the result of intelligent design is that this
isn't acceptable to many of the supporters of creationism. Their
preferred curriculum is one of indoctrination in the biblical
scriptures, not critical thinking about the process.

There are quite a few good courses that examine the various religions'
views of creationism, reincarnation, etc., etc. but these are usually
found at the college level. If one were to attempt this at the public
school (K-12) level, the outcry from the fundamentalist right would be
as loud (if not louder) than that from the secular left.


--
Paul Hovnanian mailtoaul@Hovnanian.com
note to spammers: a Washington State resident
------------------------------------------------------------------
Power corrupts. And atomic power corrupts atomically.

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:54:38 +0000, the renowned John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandSNIP
techTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote (in <j8d360pvrvoj1kicika19o7a9nbmvm5mom@
4ax.com&gt about 'OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on
Wed, 24 Mar 2004:

It's entirely feasible (I think likely) that
DNA was designed by somebody;

I don't know about 'designed', but he was obviously 'created' by Mr and
Mrs Genome.

Seems like you're making some unwarranted assumptions there..

Are you suggesting that its Mrs Genome and the mailman?


--
Paul Hovnanian mailtoaul@Hovnanian.com
note to spammers: a Washington State resident
------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep your gnosis out of my business!

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Dave wrote:
Why are so many engineers snookered by Creationism? They grow up
thinking about designs and then they study all the math and the design
techniques and they tend to look at things from the viewpoint of "What
makes it tick?" Generally they do NOT study biology, but they have an
awe for it. Then they happen across a book by one of the dozen or so
nitwit creationists and they are hooked. It seems so natural to expect
that everything MUST have been designed. Heck why not the earth also
just as the Bible says? Then they park their brains entirely and join
the "YEC" (young earth creationist) camp.

A solution that is only achievable by postulating an entity that can, do
anything, be everywhere at once, and knows all, doesn't appear to be a
particular useful solution.

Evidently, you've never prepared a system requirements document for some
poor subcontractor to implement. ;-)

--
Paul Hovnanian mailtoaul@Hovnanian.com
note to spammers: a Washington State resident
------------------------------------------------------------------
Experience is the worst teacher. It always gives the test
first and the instruction afterward.

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 13:18:46 -0800, the renowned "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
<Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Dave wrote:
Why are so many engineers snookered by Creationism? They grow up
thinking about designs and then they study all the math and the design
techniques and they tend to look at things from the viewpoint of "What
makes it tick?" Generally they do NOT study biology, but they have an
awe for it. Then they happen across a book by one of the dozen or so
nitwit creationists and they are hooked. It seems so natural to expect
that everything MUST have been designed. Heck why not the earth also
just as the Bible says? Then they park their brains entirely and join
the "YEC" (young earth creationist) camp.

A solution that is only achievable by postulating an entity that can, do
anything, be everywhere at once, and knows all, doesn't appear to be a
particular useful solution.

Evidently, you've never prepared a system requirements document for some
poor subcontractor to implement. ;-)

<ROTFLMAO> Oh, so true..


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 19:47:47 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
<kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Yeah, dream on. You know the one, extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence.

But this universe, and this planet in particular, are extraordinary.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 13:18:46 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
<Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Dave wrote:
Why are so many engineers snookered by Creationism? They grow up
thinking about designs and then they study all the math and the design
techniques and they tend to look at things from the viewpoint of "What
makes it tick?" Generally they do NOT study biology, but they have an
awe for it. Then they happen across a book by one of the dozen or so
nitwit creationists and they are hooked. It seems so natural to expect
that everything MUST have been designed. Heck why not the earth also
just as the Bible says? Then they park their brains entirely and join
the "YEC" (young earth creationist) camp.

A solution that is only achievable by postulating an entity that can, do
anything, be everywhere at once, and knows all, doesn't appear to be a
particular useful solution.

Evidently, you've never prepared a system requirements document for some
poor subcontractor to implement. ;-)

At least God got six days to get the job done.

John

 

[Ian Bell]

Dave wrote:

Why are so many engineers snookered by Creationism? They grow up
thinking about designs and then they study all the math and the design
techniques and they tend to look at things from the viewpoint of "What
makes it tick?" Generally they do NOT study biology, but they have an
awe for it. Then they happen across a book by one of the dozen or so
nitwit creationists and they are hooked. It seems so natural to expect
that everything MUST have been designed. Heck why not the earth also
just as the Bible says? Then they park their brains entirely and join
the "YEC" (young earth creationist) camp.

Please present concrete evidence that engineers are snookered by Creativism.
So far all I see is your opinion.

Ian