Religion and Engineers

[RIP - VTEnviro]

^ What was your concentration in, double entendres?

 

[Dleg]

I caught the 2-hour NOVA special about the Dover, KS "Intelligent Design" trial. Very well done episode - I had honestly never heard much of what the proponents of ID were trying to put forward, and nor had I heard much about evolution and the scientific defense (I never took a biology class outside High School). Judge what's-his-name is my hero for listening to the facts and coming down on the side of science and progress.

I'm so glad I was raised as an Episcopalian, so I never had that kind of pressure from our church to reject what I was being taught in school. Some of the folks on the ID side sounded very similar, in my opinion, to islamic fundamentalists in terms of how strongly they believed science should be repressed in the interest of imposing their personal religious views on society.

 

[mudpuppy]

Ok, I had vowed to stay out of this discussion but now that ID has been brought up, let me just say this:

When I first heard of ID I was intrigued and excited, as it sounded like a pretty cool concept. So I ordered a couple books on the subject and was very disappointed in the lack of substance behind the theory.

 

[Flyer_PE]

I read about that case a while back. I didn't think the school was trying to teach ID. My recollection is that they wanted a statement read to make the students aware that Darwinian evolution is a theory and that there are other ideas out there. They then stated there was a book available to the students if they wished to explore the subject further. That's a long way from teaching ID in the school.

There are some total nutters on both sides of this issue. I don't think they represent the majority of the people on either side but they do make for great television. If the school board was trying to force religious beliefs to be taught in the public school, I'd have a problem with it. I don't quite see making a statement that there are other theories out there as promoting religion.

 

[Dleg]

You should see the NOVA special. During the trial, the plaintiffs uncovered evidence that convinced the judge that ID was the product of an attempt by (can't remember the name of the group) to put the Bible back into the classroom and expel the teaching of evolution forever. The plaintiffs discovered a "secret" strategy document produced by this organization called "The Wedge", which was their detailed plan of attack.

Part of the strategy was to get an ID textbook written, which they did, and a box was delivered to the Dover school board. The plaintiffs were able to show that the ID book was always intended to promote the teaching of Genesis, specifically, but had been edited at the last minute to remove such references as a result of the trouble that was brewing. There were a few typos in the textbook that gave this away - "creationism" was changed to "intelligent design" very sloppily at one point, leaving something like "cintelligent designnism"

 

[Dleg]

I don't quite see making a statement that there are other theories out there as promoting religion.

Except that ID isn't a scientific theory - it's just an idea, that was "proven" in the case to be untestable and untested, and thus the very opposite of science.

I agree that it's not a big deal to tell kids that their science curriculum may conflict with their family's religious beliefs, but I think it is a step backward for education in this country to try to parade religious belief as an alternative science in itself.

And at least two of those "total nutters" you speak of made it to the Dover School Board. I'm serious - watch the special, and listen to them tell their side in their own words.

 

[Flyer_PE]

Memo to any organization contemplating skulduggery:

DON'T PUT THE SECRET PLANS ON PAPER!

 

[Flyer_PE]

And at least two of those "total nutters" you speak of made it to the Dover School Board. I'm serious - watch the special, and listen to them tell their side in their own words.

School board members are elected officials. Are you expressing surprise that a total nutter would find themselves in an elected position? The people we repeatedly elect to congress is a pretty good indication that "nutterhood" is not a disqualifying characteristic for public office.

 

[DVINNY]

WOW, I've not been to this thread in quite sometime, and after reading many of these posts, I probably should have stayed out.

but...

For discussions sake, I must ask the 'scientists, evolutionists' or whatever you call yourselves

"What scientific evidence can you show that living objects have ever been produced from non-living objects?"

Since I've heard about "THE EVIDENCE", I'm looking for an example of a tree growing without a seed, or an animal without parents? Can you find one?

Also, if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

Where did the first monkey come from?

I think these are valid questions, and I'd love to discuss valid answers.

 

[DVINNY]

If any of you nay-sayers are really open to listening to the other side and like to read, check out this book. it's from Kenneth Poppe.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0736921257..._pt#reader-link

While, I can't prove that creationism happened without the blind faith that it happened, this book shows how nobody can prove evolution happened without the same blind faith that it happened.

Very interesting.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

WOW, I've not been to this thread in quite sometime, and after reading many of these posts, I probably should have stayed out.
but...

For discussions sake, I must ask the 'scientists, evolutionists' or whatever you call yourselves

"What scientific evidence can you show that living objects have ever been produced from non-living objects?"

Since I've heard about "THE EVIDENCE", I'm looking for an example of a tree growing without a seed, or an animal without parents? Can you find one?

Also, if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

Where did the first monkey come from?

I think these are valid questions, and I'd love to discuss valid answers.

Scientific theory is not perfect (hence it is called theory instead of fact...Theory of Evolution, Big Bang Theory). The difference is that scientific theories are constantly tested against new evidence and either invalidated or confirmed by new investigation techniques. That's why I always bring up the sun god example when I have religious debates. In ancient Egypt, nobody understood how the planets moved, so they just explained the rising and setting sun with a religious tall tale, and people used their faith to believe it. When the early astronomers posed theories about how the planets moved, some were executed for heresy. They based their theories on the observations and calculations available to them at the time, and they were proven right over the centuries by more modern technologies and space travel (direct investigation).

My point is this, the current theories do not perfectly explain the beginning or evolution of life on this planet, nor the creation of the planet/universe as a whole. But why, given the history of faith versus the scientific method are people so quick to look to faith to explain the currently unexplained?

 

[DVINNY]

So if I call it the Theory of Creationism, its all good?

 

[wilheldp_PE]

So if I call it the Theory of Creationism, its all good?

From the Wikipedia page on the word "Theory":

The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions.

If you can figure out a way to either falsify or test for the existence of God, then by all means, present your theory.

 

[MGX]

I hate it when people theorize aliens populated Earth to explain life on the planet. It doesn't explain anything, only displaces the question to another planet/solar system/galaxy/etc.

On a side note, evolution doesn't explain why, where or how life sprang into being and creationism requires a huge leap and tends to fall into the 'god of the gaps' explanation.

 

[benbo]

I don't personally believe ID should be taught in school, paricularly not in science class. But I do believe all the inconsistencies with all scientific theories should be thoroughly investigated at all levels of public school. Which they most certainly are not in most schools. I was basically taught that evolution was law. Even though it was called the "Theory of Evolution" it wasn't taught to me that way, and it wasn't taught to my kid that way.

I call it the ultimate in faith to assume what you see on some public broadcasting special is not presented in a biased manner. Most ID people simply define intelligent design as meaning that things were created by an non-random logical external force, as opposed to random natural selection. They point to the problems with Darwinism as part of the explanation of that belief. But people like to take the most ridiculous extremes and parade them around in their arguments.

When somebody can point out the terrorism perpetuated by believers in intelligent design, then I'll accept it is similar to islamic fundamentalism. On the other hand, if you would like to know some of the ways Darwinism has been used by some of it's faithful proponents, perhaps you'd like to look up Darwin's cousin, Thomas Galton, and the wonderful idea of eugenics. You can always find a nutter on any side of an issue.

Or if you want a more modern example, try Peter Singer, a Princeton academic and super Darwinist who basically believes Down's syndrome children are of less value than intelligent monkeys (I'm paraphrasing). Wonderful science, wonderful academia at their best.

 

[benbo]

One added point. I believe there should be a difference noted between the "hard" sciences, such as pure chemistry, genetics, or physics, and things such as anthropology, psychology and archaeology. I am constantly amazed at all the varied and complete dinosaurs, and the knowlege of their entire lifestyle, that has been educed by these "scientists" from what I think are a very few complete skeletons. When I was a kid I always thought they were pulling complete dinosaur skeleton after skeleton out of the La Brea tarpits. And I wasn't alone. Turns out they were basically getting woolly mammoths and sabre toothed tigers and ice age animals.

 

[DVINNY]

If you can figure out a way to either falsify or test for the existence of God, then by all means, present your theory.

As soon as you can show me that evolution can happen.

I believe in natural selection. It's where the slowest running antelope get eatin by the lions. So after time, the antelope as a whole become faster. But, they do it by getting rid of the slowest antelopes in their gene pool. So as a whole herd, it becomes faster.

Fair enough.

Show me any proof that allows the single fastest antelope in the herd to become any faster as a result of this. Or better yet, after thousands of years, the fastest antelope stand up, read the newspaper, and wipe their own ***.

I'd love to see that theory presented as well.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

As soon as you can show me that evolution can happen.
I believe in natural selection. It's where the slowest running antelope get eatin by the lions. So after time, the antelope as a whole become faster. But, they do it by getting rid of the slowest antelopes in their gene pool. So as a whole herd, it becomes faster.

Fair enough.

Show me any proof that allows the single fastest antelope in the herd to become any faster as a result of this. Or better yet, after thousands of years, the fastest antelope stand up, read the newspaper, and wipe their own ***.

I'd love to see that theory presented as well.

Well, there are skeletons that have been discovered of **** Habilis, **** Erectus, and several other "links in the chain". Can you explain why those creatures no longer exist and we do? Maybe that chain doesn't link back to monkeys (or primates in general), but it's pretty hard to deny that humans have been evolving for thousands of years.

Anthropology and carbon dating are the two ways that evolution can be tested. As technology allows, it can be investigated further and either proven true or false. I'm comfortable with it either way. I still have not seen a valid way to test of the existence of God that doesn't require a healthy dose of faith.

 

[engineergurl]

I believe in natural selection. It's where the slowest running antelope get eatin by the lions. So after time, the antelope as a whole become faster. But, they do it by getting rid of the slowest antelopes in their gene pool. So as a whole herd, it becomes faster.

I use this theory as an explination when I drunk... the alcohol will only kill the stupid slow brain cells...

 

[Dleg]

If any of you nay-sayers are really open to listening to the other side and like to read, check out this book. it's from Kenneth Poppe.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0736921257..._pt#reader-link

While, I can't prove that creationism happened without the blind faith that it happened, this book shows how nobody can prove evolution happened without the same blind faith that it happened.

Very interesting.

That guy was all over the NOVA special, as well as his book. Check out the NOVA special. Plenty of argument from both the ID PhD's and the Evolution PhD's. What would you or I have to add to that discussion?

I call it the ultimate in faith to assume what you see on some public broadcasting special is not presented in a biased manner. Most ID people simply define intelligent design as meaning that things were created by an non-random logical external force, as opposed to random natural selection. They point to the problems with Darwinism as part of the explanation of that belief. But people like to take the most ridiculous extremes and parade them around in their arguments.
When somebody can point out the terrorism perpetuated by believers in intelligent design, then I'll accept it is similar to islamic fundamentalism. On the other hand, if you would like to know some of the ways Darwinism has been used by some of it's faithful proponents, perhaps you'd like to look up Darwin's cousin, Thomas Galton, and the wonderful idea of eugenics. You can always find a nutter on any side of an issue.

Or if you want a more modern example, try Peter Singer, a Princeton academic and super Darwinist who basically believes Down's syndrome children are of less value than intelligent monkeys (I'm paraphrasing). Wonderful science, wonderful academia at their best.

Give me a break, benbo! I know you usually just like to argue for the fun of it, so I'll give you that, and play along: If you think that it takes "the ultimate in faith" to believe what I hear from a couple dozen PhD's on both sides of the issue, as reported through a long-running science documentary series on PBS, then you must also have taken that ultimate leap of faith in believing what those *******s in the textbook publishing companies told you about electrical engineering!

As far as the terrorism goes, watch the NOVA special - death threats against the teachers, the expert witnessses, the new school board members who replaced the ID members (in a popular election), and the federal judge in the case. Is threatening to kill someone because they don't share your beliefs not terrorism? Is it only terrorism if those threats are carried out? I'd be interested to know where you draw the line on "extremism".

I find it very difficult to condone any view that would suppress the progress of science in the name of religion, unless there was some direct harm that came of such science (like experimenting on live humans, including fetuses). I don't think the study of evolution or paleontology has anything to do with engineering, so I won't hold such medieval attitudes against anyone in our profession, but when it comes to the fields of science, and more importantly, to the field of politics, where politics influence the direction and funding of science and science education, then I do believe such attitudes put our society on an equal footing with muslim fundamentalists (I didn't say extremists), communist dicatorships, the Spanish Inquisition, or any other society which repressed legitimate science in the name of their beliefs and ideology.

Personally, I believe it is very possible that we live in a created universe. However, I also believe that the undeniable evidence provided by geology and paleontology and cosmology - things any one of us can actually observe ourselves - shows that a literal belief in Genesis is unsupported. As our episcopalian priest told me when I pestered him about this in junior high, maybe Genesis was presented as a very broad and simplified story to the first writers of the bible. Maybe it was like "...then I created the strong sub-atomic force, which allowed gluons to.... oh nevermind, let's just say it happened like this:" Or maybe Genesis is a complete work of fiction by some early politician who thought a new religion would be the best way to restore order to his tribe. Either way, as I've stated before, a purely rational examination of all the facts would not prove or disprove the existence of a creator God - atheism is as much a "belief" as any religion.

So as long as one's religion isn't harming humanity, I don't see a problem with it. And if people want to have religion as an elective or even mandatory high school subject, then I have no problem with teaching theology in schools, as long the brand of theology is left up to the students to choose. And a major compnent of any theology class, I would hope, would be that religion's idea of creation, or ID if the kids were allowed (I would hoep) to take a class that surveyed various religions of the world (cuz you all got to admit, someone must be wrong...)

But ID is not science. Leave the science curriculum alone.