OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?

[R. Steve Walz]

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:51:10 +0000, the renowned John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org
wrote (in <7c584d27.0403260930.7bc2be0@posting.google.com&gt about 'OT:
Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Fri, 26 Mar 2004:
Or are you a
member of a religious sect that believes that mopping floors induces a
mental state in which you can discern God's intentions?

Didn't you know that? It's a sure-fire certain way to enlightenment. Of
course, you might starve for lack of pay before you reach it.

From what I've read of Japanese practices, Zen enlightenment is a
state of mental breakdown induced by deliberate sleep deprivation. And
whacking with wooden sticks. You could buy a 24-hour diner and refuse
to hire help...
Spehro Pefhany
---------------------------

No, it isn't, it doesn't take any deprivation at all, merely effort.
And it is absolutely startling how soon that effort is rewarded
when you try it.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Scott Stephens wrote:

Daniel Haude wrote:
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 19:13:29 GMT,
Scott Stephens <scottxs@comcast.net> wrote
in Msg. <tbG8c.8689$K91.29163@attbi_s02

I am familiar with the Anthropic principle, but it can imply that
existence would not exist of nobody was around to experience it.
Therefore, the universe and existence is illogical.


No, the Anthropic principle implies that if nobody is around to experience
existence, then nobody cares about existence and non-existence and
therefore it doesn't matter.

Or expressed differently:

Q: Could the Universe exist without life?

A: Who cares?

--Daniel


Yes, I know that. But one might errantly conclude that since existence
is the subject of what sentient life perceives, if there is no sentient
life to perceive a subject, the percept does not exist.
--------------------------

Only the percept exists. There is no subject, the IDEA of your very
existent IS both the percept and YOU!!!!!!!

Though the noumena of the non-existent phenomena exists, one can
errantly conclude it wouldn't. Especially if one subscribes to a
philosophy that asserts the primacy of consciousness over matter.
Scott
---------------------------

There is no "matter", only the percept of matter, which is merely
an idea-percept in the Divine Imagination in which all Being IS.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Richard Henry <rphenry@home.com>
wrote (in <Fm39c.6203$Q45.2143@fed1read02&gt about 'OT: Why are Engineers
snookered by Creationism ?', on Fri, 26 Mar 2004:

I assume it's fiction. When we learned this song in school, there was
another about a ram who butted down a dam.

Yes, but that lyric ('High Hopes') makes sense, even if the plot is
fantasy.
--
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

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:16:22 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

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

Kind of hard to tell with a sample of only one. There could be
billions more just about the same. From what we can tell, the sun is a
rather ordinary star. The MP troupe had this to say about the matter:


Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,
That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,
A sun that is the source of all our power.
The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,
Of the galaxy we call the 'Milky Way'.
Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars.
It's a hundred thousand light years side to side.
It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick,
But out by us, it's just three thousand light years wide.
We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point.
We go 'round every two hundred million years,
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe.

The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whizz
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,
Twelve million miles a minute, and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth,
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.


An I'll wash that down with a waaafer thin mint.

Kevin Aylward
-------------------------

Now can we have your liver then?

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 07:37:23 -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.

In your opinion maybe, but not mine. Your argument is circular.

Maybe I'm just having more fun than you are.

John
-------------

Do you really NOT "get it"?? ANYBODY in an intelligent species
which evolved in a stable enough ecology would be so perfectly
adapted to that place that it would seem "extraordinarily lucky
they were there" as opposed to someplace where the atmosphere
was nothing but burning nitrogen and oxygen at 300K and saline
oceans that would dissolve your scales right off.

IOW:
The fact that we like it here is merely evidence we evolved here.

"The Anthropic Principle says that:
The seemingly unique hospitality of the Physical World
toward us is entirely explained if it simply permits us
a sufficiently developed capacity to speculate upon it!!"
-Richard Steve Walz 2004

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Kevin Aylward]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Daniel Haude wrote:

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 19:13:29 GMT,
Scott Stephens <scottxs@comcast.net> wrote
in Msg. <tbG8c.8689$K91.29163@attbi_s02

I am familiar with the Anthropic principle, but it can imply that
existence would not exist of nobody was around to experience it.
Therefore, the universe and existence is illogical.

No, the Anthropic principle implies that if nobody is around to
experience existence, then nobody cares about existence and
non-existence and therefore it doesn't matter.

Or expressed differently:

Q: Could the Universe exist without life?
-----------------
The Universe cannot exist without Life, because
Life = the Perceived Universe.

Nope. There is no logical basis for this conjecture.

A world unperceived is a non-existent world.

Nope. Only that it can not be proved to exist. Absence of proof is not
proof of absence.

Without a Being in a World, no World exists.
Existence is entirely subjective and of an entirely imaginary
nature. No atoms are real except that they are ideas in the mind.

Prove it.

I agree that our models of physical entities may be somewhat arbitrary,
but the entities themselves exist, independent of our model.

No perception is real except that it is as real as anything gets!
Another word for the Cosmos, All Universes, is The Imagination.

Aimless speculation.

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]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Scott Stephens wrote:

Daniel Haude wrote:
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 19:13:29 GMT,
Scott Stephens <scottxs@comcast.net> wrote
in Msg. <tbG8c.8689$K91.29163@attbi_s02

I am familiar with the Anthropic principle, but it can imply that
existence would not exist of nobody was around to experience it.
Therefore, the universe and existence is illogical.


No, the Anthropic principle implies that if nobody is around to
experience existence, then nobody cares about existence and
non-existence and therefore it doesn't matter.

Or expressed differently:

Q: Could the Universe exist without life?

A: Who cares?

--Daniel


Yes, I know that. But one might errantly conclude that since
existence is the subject of what sentient life perceives, if there
is no sentient life to perceive a subject, the percept does not
exist.
--------------------------
Only the percept exists. There is no subject, the IDEA of your very
existent IS both the percept and YOU!!!!!!!


Though the noumena of the non-existent phenomena exists, one can
errantly conclude it wouldn't. Especially if one subscribes to a
philosophy that asserts the primacy of consciousness over matter.
Scott
---------------------------
There is no "matter", only the percept of matter,

*Prove* that there would be no matter.

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.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

John Larkin wrote:

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+school


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;
--------------------

When you see a house made of bricks, and you know bricks are made BY
someone, it is okay to assume the house was built BY someone. It is
even okay to assume that since you don't see them in nature, that
bricks were made BY someone. It is NOT okay logically to see nature
and then assume that atoms, which you do NOT know to be made, mean
that the Universe is made by "someone".

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
------------------

Garbage.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Dave Cole]

in article c3sj9t$d1m$0@216.39.172.65, Walter Harley at
walterh@cafewalterNOSPAM.com wrote on 3/24/04 12:16:

"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."


Very well stated!

Dave Cole

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 07:25:01 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 07:37:23 -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.

In your opinion maybe, but not mine. Your argument is circular.

Maybe I'm just having more fun than you are.

John
-------------
Do you really NOT "get it"?? ANYBODY in an intelligent species
which evolved in a stable enough ecology would be so perfectly
adapted to that place that it would seem "extraordinarily lucky
they were there" as opposed to someplace where the atmosphere
was nothing but burning nitrogen and oxygen at 300K and saline
oceans that would dissolve your scales right off.

Looks like I'm having more fun than you, too.

John

 

[R. Steve Walz]

John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 07:25:01 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 07:37:23 -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.

In your opinion maybe, but not mine. Your argument is circular.

Maybe I'm just having more fun than you are.

John
-------------
Do you really NOT "get it"?? ANYBODY in an intelligent species
which evolved in a stable enough ecology would be so perfectly
adapted to that place that it would seem "extraordinarily lucky
they were there" as opposed to someplace where the atmosphere
was nothing but burning nitrogen and oxygen at 300K and saline
oceans that would dissolve your scales right off.

Looks like I'm having more fun than you, too.

John
----------------------

You should know better.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[JeffM]

Why are so many engineers snookered by Creationism?
Dave

What fraction of engineers do you imagine are creationists?

Of the engineers who are creationists, what fraction do you imagine
were creationists before they trained to be engineers?

Early training is hard to get around.
John Popelish

John, at what age did you "see the light"
(or should I say "move over to the dark side"?

"I think that naming your ignorance 'God' and pretending that, having named it,
you have converted ignorance to knowledge is a sorry approach to the unknown."
--John Popelish, alt.atheism

Terse, insightful.

 

[Daniel Haude]

On 26 Mar 2004 09:30:37 -0800,
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote
in Msg. <7c584d27.0403260930.7bc2be0@posting.google.com>

intended Daniel Haude to spend his time mopping floors? Or are you a
member of a religious sect that believes that mopping floors induces a
mental state in which you can discern God's intentions?

Actually, Mr. Bloggs is my personal answerbot. Thanks to him I can use
s.e.d in lieu of alt.test whenever I suspect there's something wrong with
my newsfeed.

--Daniel

--
"With me is nothing wrong! And with you?" (from r.a.m.p)

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Bill Sloman wrote:

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<40641AB4.4040600@nospam.com>...

Daniel Haude wrote:


No, the Anthropic principle implies that if nobody is around to experience
existence, then nobody cares about existence and non-existence and
therefore it doesn't matter.

Or expressed differently:

Q: Could the Universe exist without life?

A: Who cares?

--Daniel


Pseudo-intellectual riffraff- get off your lazy kraut butt, find a mop,
and then discover what God really intended you to do- TOTAL WASTE OF
TIME- career pseudo-intellectual "student"- damned joke.


Hmm. Do you have a hot-line to God, through which he told you that He
intended Daniel Haude to spend his time mopping floors? Or are you a
member of a religious sect that believes that mopping floors induces a
mental state in which you can discern God's intentions?

Just curious ....

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

It should be crystal clear to anyone who has read his posts that Herr
Haude is made for something *uncomplicated*. Okay- he lives in Germany,
so maybe operating a machine that efficiently processes animal entrails
is the ticket.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org
wrote (in <7c584d27.0403260930.7bc2be0@posting.google.com&gt about 'OT:
Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Fri, 26 Mar 2004:

Or are you a
member of a religious sect that believes that mopping floors induces a
mental state in which you can discern God's intentions?


Didn't you know that? It's a sure-fire certain way to enlightenment. Of
course, you might starve for lack of pay before you reach it.

Ahhh- or hang on USENET 24/7 and reply to each and every post with
considered but sublimely superficial commentary- be a webmonk.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote (in <4066CFF5.7010801@nospam.com&gt about 'OT: Why are Engineers
snookered by Creationism ?', on Sun, 28 Mar 2004:

Ahhh- or hang on USENET 24/7 and reply to each and every post with
considered but sublimely superficial commentary- be a webmonk.

I'm a novice compared to you. Isn't that above 'sublimely superficial
commentary', Father Abbot?
--
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

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

"R. Steve Walz" wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 07:37:23 -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.

In your opinion maybe, but not mine. Your argument is circular.

Maybe I'm just having more fun than you are.

John
-------------
Do you really NOT "get it"?? ANYBODY in an intelligent species
which evolved in a stable enough ecology would be so perfectly
adapted to that place that it would seem "extraordinarily lucky
they were there" as opposed to someplace where the atmosphere
was nothing but burning nitrogen and oxygen at 300K and saline
oceans that would dissolve your scales right off.

Oceans of dihydrogen monoxide no less!!

--
Paul Hovnanian mailtoaul@Hovnanian.com
note to spammers: a Washington State resident
------------------------------------------------------------------
On a clear desk, you can sleep forever.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Paul Hovnanian P.E.
<Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote (in <4066F43E.B4D93C36@Hovnanian.com&gt about
'OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Sun, 28 Mar 2004:

Oceans of dihydrogen monoxide no less!!

But it's mostly in the less dangerous hydrated form OH2.(HOH)3. The non-
hydrated form is mostly found in Arizona, I believe, and in the north of
Chile.
--
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

 

[John Popelish]

jeffm_@email.com (JeffM) wrote:

John Popelish wrote:
Dave (galt_57@hotmail.com)wrote:
Why are so many engineers snookered by Creationism?

What fraction of engineers do you imagine are creationists?

Of the engineers who are creationists, what fraction do you imagine
were creationists before they trained to be engineers?

Early training is hard to get around.

John, at what age did you "see the light"
(or should I say "move over to the dark side"?
(snip)

I was a good Catholic boy till about age 14 or so. Then it all imploded.

--
John Popelish

 

[John Larkin]

On 28 Mar 2004 11:49:35 -0800, jpopelish@rica.net (John Popelish)
wrote:

jeffm_@email.com (JeffM) wrote:
John Popelish wrote:
Dave (galt_57@hotmail.com)wrote:
Why are so many engineers snookered by Creationism?

What fraction of engineers do you imagine are creationists?

Of the engineers who are creationists, what fraction do you imagine
were creationists before they trained to be engineers?

Early training is hard to get around.

John, at what age did you "see the light"
(or should I say "move over to the dark side"?
(snip)

I was a good Catholic boy till about age 14 or so. Then it all imploded.

Protestantism only lasted 12 years for me. Must be weaker stuff.

John