If you’ve got the 29 August issue of Chemical & Engineering News, there’s an interesting editorial inside. It seems there has been a flurry of activity on C&EN on the issue of evolution; the editor dismissed the whole idea of intelligent design creationism back in February, saying that it was not an acceptable alternative to the theory of evolution and should not be taught in the schools. He got hammered with forceful complaints from pro-ID engineers, and many letters were published in the April issue. Uh-oh, I hear all the engineers out there groaning, here comes the Salem hypothesis again…
However, here’s the cool thing: those pro-creationism letters spurred an even greater response from the C&EN readership, a wonderful colossal roar of disapproval against the vocal subset who were endorsing ID, and a small fraction of the letters are published in the latest issue (I’ve got the print copy; the online edition is a bit behind, but keep an eye open for it.)
It’s reassuring. A noisy few cranks in engineering occasionally get all the news, but give them a chance and a voice and the majority do favor good science.
Queue Randy Stimpson…..
Professionally, engineers are among the most affected by science. We are consumers of science, as are medical professionals. We should be upset by anything that serves to corrupt or limit it.
@#2
Well, the medical profession is already lost. There was already a recent poll that said like 63% (IIRC) of medical professionals believe that god is the cause of unexpected recoveries…
This is a great reality check.
so often, it seems that the preponderance of ID supporters I see in various online fora claim to be engineers of some sort.
now I see those are likely just the ones out of work.
Just a point of clarification – most subscribers to C&EN are chemists, not engineers. It’s the official news magazine of the American Chemical Society.
I just attended the national meeting of the ACS, and all of the candidates for president and directors are quite concerned about the state of science education in this country.
Knew I had a quote about this. From an article I wrote on Brian Greene’s essay in the NY Times:
There are a certain number of engineers who wonder why we waste all that money on people digging through rocks looking for fossils, etc. Generally speaking, though, they’re not the bright ones.
note the editor’s page on global warming deniers from back in June:
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/editor/86/8623editor.html
…
hallelujah, here is one person who really does understand the politics behind the anti-science movement.
Chemists know how to react!
C+EN is mostly chemistry – it’s the weekly magazine of the American Chemical Society (I don’t think the ACS is affiliated with the AIChE, other than holding meetings together sometimes).
Anything that might offend the delicate sensibilities of C+EN-reading conservatives (environmentalism, global warming, and evolution being the hot buttons) tends to get vehement responses of either the “You’re wrong because I say so.” variety or of the “You shouldn’t mention anything about politics because I don’t like it and dissent is un-American.” variety, with occasional “It will bankrupt us not to pollute, and we’ll just go somewhere else” responses.
Unfortunately, I know people (who I respect) who dropped their membership because of Baum’s stand on evolution. I’m still glad he took it, though.
“A noisy few cranks in engineering . . .”
heh – very good.
…I’m thinking PZ should invite the editor (Rudy Baum) to do a guest post on Pharyngula.
seriously.
Well, engineering magazines have also reported on engineers being more likely to commit acts of terror.
We need statistics (and Venn diagrams) indicating the intersection of engineering, terrorism, and creationism. Somehow I suspect that terrorism would correlate rather more closely with creationism than with engineering itself.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
I don’t know the nature of the relationship between ACS and AIChE, but every AIChE member receives a subscription to C&EN. It’s included in the membership dues. There are certainly a huge number of engineers who receive it.
Cujo359 @ 6 Science- never a waste of time!
ACS also serves chemical engineers as much as chemists.
I am a chemical engineer by training (GA Tech ’97) and I find my engineering brethern from back in college to be deeply committed to science and science education. Most of the engineers I know and respect are, in my opinion, very rational thinkers and thus would be against ideas like ID.
However, just like in medicine, I find the engineering field littered with people who have built strong mental firewalls to separate their daily rational life with their irrational beliefs. They see nothing strange about designing a bridge or structure based on good science and fundamental engineering principles and then attending a prayer service at the opening ceremony in which they invoke the god(s) to protect the structure and to provide for the safety of those who use it.
Brad@13 – I stand (actually sit) corrected – I didn’t realize that C&EN went to all the members of AIChE. However, I’ll stand by my original statement that most subscribers are chemists. Membership numbers from the respective websites:
ACS – 160,000+
AIChE – 40,000+
Finally, I’ll just repeat the oft-stated truth that we should remember that 50% of all doctors (and chemists, and engineers) graduated in the bottom half of their class….
There was already a recent poll that said like 63% (IIRC) of medical professionals believe that god is the cause of unexpected recoveries…
How do they feel about those unexpected complications and deaths?
From a working engineer of 25 years (I work on devices upon which people’s lives literally depend: design, test, regulatory approval, maintenance, etc.). Many engineers are believers (I’m not) but I would say that very few are YECs. Like PZM said: a few noisy cranks. Most engineers are very data-driven and science-respecting/following which make YEC hard to accept (obviously.) I think the few who are YECs must have a scizophrenic thing going to keep it compartmentalized. I’ve never heard an engineer openly advocate YEC.
This is my opportunity to tell an engineering/physics joke:
The student during the Mech. Engineering 102 final asks the proctor: “Can we assume zero friction in the bearings?”
Proctor: “No, all the zero-friction bearings are kept in the physics department.”
And:
If it’s green, it’s biology. If it stinks, it’s chemistry. If it doesn’t work, it’s engineering. If it’s green, stinks, and doesn’t work, it’s chemical engineering.
How do they feel about those unexpected complications and deaths?
God is mad at the Democrats for letting that communist atheist terrorist elitist Radical Black Christian Separatist arugula-eating non-lapel-pin-wearing latte-licking limousine liberal Barack Obama get so close to the presidency?
Addendum:
Engineers are as “run of the mill” people as can be: they reflect the (math-literate part of) society as a whole. So, inevitably, there will be plenty of believers involved (in the US). Engineering training teaches you to use data to solve problems. This probably skews the engineering population somewhat away from belief. but not much I’d say. Most people can hold engineering truths and their imaginary friend in mind and not feel a contradiction .. somehow.
And:
Q: How can you tell an outgoing engineer from a typical one?
A: The typical engineer looks at his shoes while talking to someone. An outgoing engineer looks at the other person’s shoes. ;^)
As a garden variety chemical engineer it has been my experience that most of my colleagues are very rational, science based people. Of course, there are conservatives, randroids,neocons, and a whole political fauna but that is another history. And to be a little bit provocative I have found that many of these know-it-all engineers tend to be CS, or EE graduates. :)
Actually, I thought that 70% of the general public thought god was responsible for medical recoveries while only about 20% of doctors shared that opinion.
PZ,
you are correct about the positions taken by Rudy Baum, the editor of C&EN, and about the reactions it received. I have been reading C&EN for quite some time and am constantly impressed with the level of scientific ignorance displayed by some of its loud readers in issues such as evolution and global warming.
However, you are incorrect in the assumption that the readership of this publication is mainly composed of engineers. C&EN is published by the American Chemical Society and is freely distributed to all its members. The ACS, unlike the AIChE (American Institute of Chemical Engineers) is mainly composed by chemists, and not by chemical engineers.
I believe a correction to your post is in place, since a significant portion of your text is dedicated to the analysis of the wrong professional class.
Joao
P.S.: I understand the tendency of the natural sciences community to associate unscientific behavior to exogenous disciplines such as engineering, but, unfortunately, from my experience, this specific correlation is inexistent.
My people.
Well, technically, not. I’m an RSCer, myself.
I’ve always wondered: would engineers as a group be slightly more likely (compared to other applied science professionals) to support ID because their job is real intelligent design, and so would be more susceptible to false analogy biases, or slightly less likely to support ID because, being real intelligent designers, they can see the obvious differences between their own work and actual biological systems. Or would the two possibilies perfectly cancel each other out, making engineers no different than anyone else?
Also, being a medical professional, I find that 63% number somewhat suspicious. If it is true, I suspect that at most it is a very weak version of the “god of the gaps” argument. (Using “god” as a colloquial shorthand for “that which we do not yet understand.”)
Let’s teach the controversy! How about some faith-based engineering designs for airliners? Think of the money saved on the so-called “tests” and “math” and whether the damn thing “works”. Just have faith, brothers. (YMMV, see airport for details and legal disclaimers.)
Oh, I don’t know, Julie… could it be… SATAN?
Regarding the opinions of medical professionals, The Black Atheist (comment #23) has correctly recalled the survey results recently reported. From the August 19 AP story:
“More than half of randomly surveyed adults — 57 percent — said God’s intervention could save a family member even if physicians declared treatment would be futile. And nearly three-quarters said patients have a right to demand such treatment. When asked to imagine their own relatives being gravely ill or injured, nearly 20 percent of doctors and other medical workers said God could reverse a hopeless outcome.”
How do they feel about those unexpected complications and deaths?
that’s a great question.
I wonder if Orac would have some input on that?
My fiance is an electrical engineer and literally cringes each and every time some dingbat with the same degree as him tries to dismiss the whole of evolutionary biology.
I never understood why someone who has a degree in applied sciences would be so…anti-science.
On a side note this crazy guy(http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/)claims to be an engineer and often uses this claim to bolster his arguments.
amphiox #26
My anecdotal evidence is that engineers are no different from anyone else. I know engineers who are born-again fundamentalist evangelicals and other engineers who are born-again atheists.
nearly 20 percent of doctors and other medical workers said God could reverse a hopeless outcome.
I wonder how many were doctors and just who the “other medical workers” were? I once had a nurse’s aide tell me that I wouldn’t have needed surgery had I used aromatherapy. Yeah, right…
“How do they feel about those unexpected complications and deaths?”
Those get swept under the rug. I mean if they don’t like it then god could not have possibly of done it.
Will the creationists be writing miracle chemistry textbooks, which explain the water into wine chemistry of Jesus?
I stand corrected, #29 is right.
At #9 Hap put the conservative position (not his own!) that “dissent is un-American”. (Hmm. I’m assuming Hap is a him without knowing. Sorry about that.)
This strikes me as laughable, but it seems to be becoming more and more prevalent (it’s a favourite tactic of those who want people to say nothing against a war they disagree with, and to say nothing about the quiet rendition of freedoms and liberties, but lately it seems to be expanding – like the recent incident where a judge was prevented from publishing a dissenting minority opinion).
Firstly, the foundation of the USA as an independent nation was dissent, surely (or do they imagine the Boston Tea Party to be an actual high tea, with scones and wafer-thin cucumber sandwiches and raised pinkies? And all that “Revolutionary War” thing was just a bit o’ marchin’ up and down, followed by a couple of quick rounds of whist?)
And secondly, wasn’t that really the whole point of the “free-speech” thing? To make certain that dissent was not abridged (even though, of course, it has been)?
What they mean by “dissent is un-American” is “if you disagree with me, you hate America, but it’s my duty as a patriot to disagreee with you at every turn”.
Which reveals it for what it is – just a play in a power game.
It’s already been said, but C&EN is the magazine of the American Chemical Society, which serves chemists and chemical engineers.
Rudy Baum has taken a brave stand against anti-evolutionists and other anti-science types (like global warming deniers) and he’s taken some hits from it. What’s amazing is that anti-science nuts will turn up in droves in the letters section of the magazine for the American Chemical Society! Do they have some kind of monitoring system? I think we pro-science types need to get a lot more organized since they can organize letter-writing campaigns to science groups. What would happen if pro-science supporters wrote letters in droves every time a pro-ID editorial is published?
Rudy Baum is not quite the “defender of science” that he claims to be. It’s quite easy for Baum to take potshots at the creationist looneys, but people inside ACS understand that he does this to give himself some credibility while he ignores problems in the chemical industry.
You can see from this story on Vanity Fair that Baum was behind the ouster of a journalist who reported on a science for hire outfit called The Weinberg Group.
And anyone who trolls through Rudy Baum’s page at Sourcewatch will discover that he has been behind the ACS attempt to undermine the NIH Open Access Initiative. It’s been reported that Baum is just trying to defend his bonuses that are based on ACS publishing profits.
This is all well known to people inside ACS and who live in Washington DC. But to others, Rudy Baum’s bluster over creationism makes him look like some shining knight of science.
pradeep, I’m a GaTech ME, ’85. You young whippersnapper, you.
Thanks PZ for a positive post wrt engineers. I hate to feel like I’m alone in the wilderness.
Q: What three things do you need to know to be a civil engineer?
A: Shit flows downhill, you can’t push with a string, and payday’s on Thursday.
If it ain’t broke…
It doesn’t have enough features.
Q: Is the glass half empty or half full?
A: Neither, it’s twice the size it should be.
And always remember, there comes a time when you have to shoot the engineers and go into production.
Hey Mike Huben, anyone can turn water into wine. I myself used to turn water into beer, and then back into water again! It’s a MIRACLE!
My favorite was when Phyllis Schafly wrote a letter to the editor to try to counter a Dick Zare editorial calling for increased representation of women in chemistry. Phyllis Schafly reads C&EN?
I’m glad, but have they said anything on how to go about it?
I know both Michl and Francisco (president candidates) very well, and they are both very dedicated to education. I just worry whether they have real initiatives in mind that can make a difference?
Yep, C&EN is primarily a chemistry thing. I’m sure lots of chemical engineers read it but it really has a chemistry focus (with a lot of biochemistry in the last few years).
Editorials got a lot more controversial when Rudy Baum became the editor and he’s taken a lot of flack for his editorials. Like the other posters, I’ve been really surprised to see all the creationist chemists come out of the woodwork.
As a side note, I don’t think Baum’s editorializing has anything to do with his opposition to Open Access or PubChem. The whole ACS is against both of those programs!
I remember very well when Phyllis Schlafly wrote a letter to C&EN. Her claim was that there were fewer women in science because women just won’t/can’t do science. Her “evidence” was that her two daughters didn’t want to study science. I know her son didn’t study science either, based on the drivel that gets written in Conservapedia.
I think pradeep hit the nail on the head in post #16, and that it is more just the greater tendency toward religious belief by engineers, not YEC in particular, that is the interesting issue.
I am a computer engineer (formerly a programmer) and I have several fellow “engineer” colleagues who have no problems believing quite firmly in Jesus (and dropping subtle hints that I should give Christianity a chance…sorry, been there, done that in my impressionable early 20’s), and also believing in the practical worldly processes and various other guidance procedures we use in forging detailed requirements and needs of our customers, and translating them into more detailed implementation approach specifics for various programmer worker bees, etc.
This is engineering or technology…building practical things (supposedly!) and having little to do with any central inquiry into natural causes of various sorts of more basic (natural) stuff.
I sense that “scientists” would be less susceptible to religious belief (certainly conservative religious belief where acceptance of the supernatural is strong) because it is more likely that they deal, professionally, with the more fundamental truths of “natural reality” (as opposed to the more “artificial realities” we build into all of these confounded computer systems) and thus it is correspondingly harder to compartmentalize and avoid cognitive dissonance about the whole religion-as-supernatural-aspect thing.
Fundamentally, I view “engineers”, at least computer engineers, as little different than plumbers or electricians or even lawyers (perish the thought!)and I am no longer surprised (altho a bit dismayed and perplexed, still) when they profess their other Belief.
Rudy Baum is not quite the “defender of science” that he claims to be.
Image tarnished, but message is unaffected.
It’s a good message, and frankly, if he wants to mitigate whatever other issues he has by repeating it loudly, I don’t have a problem with that.
Given that C&EN is an ACS publication, right there available at pubs.acs.org (libraries pay for the on-line subscription) I’m not surprised to hear him toe the party line when it comes to pay-for-journal-subscriptions.
Rudy Baum is like a broken clock – he tells the right time twice each day. From personal experience I know that he has fabricated his reviews of papers he claims to have read and presentations he claims to have attended. He is a disgrace to C&EN and our industry in general. That he took the right stand on evolution is just dumb luck.
That he took the right stand on evolution is just dumb luck.
in fact, since he also took a similar stance against global warming deniers, it suggests more than luck.
I know that he has fabricated his reviews of papers he claims to have read and presentations he claims to have attended.
…and whatever his other sins, that relates to his message here how exactly?
do you disagree with the message itself, or not?
frankly this is looking more than a bit ad-hominem.
A couple of points:
First, my old one about how on internet no one knows you’re a dog. Someone can claim to be an engineer in a letter to the editor. Does the editorial board check references?
Second, and betraying my ignorance here, what’s the “Salem hypothesis” and why does PZ write “again?”
@ No 3 and 20 :
While disturbing,keep in mind that these are numbers for the USA and not the rest of the world.
In Europe and Australia the number of doctors spouting such nonsense would,from personal experience,be under 10 %.
I spent a year working as an intern at an automation company where the vast majority of my co-workers were engineers. The greatest thing about doing an internship was that I had no homework, and therefore had time to read some popular science books on a wide range of subjects. One of the older engineers started referring to me as “the fellow with the smart people books”, and we got into several interesting talks about a wide range of subjects. He seemed extremely intelligent and well-read, and I was therefore utterly shocked and rather horrified when I brought in a book called “In the Blink of an Eye” (which is all about the evolution of the eye and how the author thinks that sparked the Cambrian Explosion) and his response was “you know, the eye always seemed to blow the whole evolution thing apart”. I tried to explain about various proto-eyes, like the light-sensitive eye spots on snails, but he simply wasn’t interested. I still am not entirely sure what to think about the incident.
Lets think about this Myers post.
Amen. The people should matter and have an influence on origin issues wherever they are in the public domain. Schools, Museums, etc
Amen. I believe some 70 % think creationism is fine for equal time in america.
As for these engineers well I’m sure the number of those who believe in God or even Genesis is impressive. To define the ones that agree with evolution etc as the good ones and the others the bad ones is a interesting strategy.
I don’t care about the contention behind the write-in but it indicates again the importance and increasing importance of origin issues and fredom of inquiry and speech. This is evidence of how origin issues are to be decided by everyone and not a few.
This has been brought to you from the energy and ability of biblical creationism and those who basicly believe in God in the last two decades.
You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
As for these engineers well I’m sure the number of those who believe in God or even Genesis is impressive. To define the ones that agree with evolution etc as the good ones and the others the bad ones is a interesting strategy.
bullshit.
the definition of a good or bad engineer is based on their skills as an engineer, just as with any profession, scientists or otherwise.
the definition of a MORON is one that adheres to creationist nonsense.
that one can both be a moron and a good engineer is debatable, but probability suggests even if it is highly uncommon, there must be at least one example. When we examine the world of biology, we find essentially NO examples of currently practicing (meaning publishing in peer reviewed journals) biologists who are also creationists. We do, however, find examples of those claiming to be non-creationist xians who manage to do science just fine, for the most part. Ken Miller comes to mind.
that said, do you know what compartmentalization is?
some people are very good at it, but when they let their nonsense bleed over to their rational side, they fail to compartmentalize.
It inevitably ends up sounding something like yourself.
amen.
Oh. It’s a democracy, now? Reality is subject to the popular vote? What if the Prometheus myth experiences an unexpected surge in popularity? Things could get interesting!
What if the Prometheus myth experiences an unexpected surge in popularity?
phht. I know that Dagon worship will be making a resurgence very soon (global warming is merely the first sign!).
Here’s hoping that you and yours will be first in line to be eaten by his second in command, Cthulhu, and thus avoid the interminable tortures endured by those who have to wait.
cheers!
oh, and for the kiddies, the plushy story of Cthulhu…
http://www.logicalcreativity.com/jon/plush/01.html
(best to teach them early about their inevitable fate, so they can rejoice in it…)
Ichthyic:
I got:
and
pharyngula, already?
But the rest of it worked fine. Good stuff.
Thanks, Ichy. I know you always have my best interest in mind. :-)
I got:
You Are Curious Reader #[an error occurred while processing this directive]
of course that part is blank.
In time, it will tell you your place in line…
but it’s not time yet.
Try again in a year or so.
(you’ll have to study the proper astronomical charts and consult your copy of the Necronomicon to correctly calculate the exact date you should check back).
Ichthyic@ 57
I would do many extravagant things for a plushy Cthulhu. You many have a very keen marketing opportunity on your hands Ichy.
I would do many extravagant things for a plushy Cthulhu.
now, I could obtain one FOR you, and then expect extravagant things in return, but if you prefer to grab one yourself…
http://www.toyvault.com/cthulhu/plush_cthulhu.html
model sold separately… I think.
It is my experience from having locked horns in various forums over the years with those claiming to be engineers and to have firm logical proofs in god is that they are philosophical circle squarers. That is to say they are the ones who have noticed the incompatibility of their beliefs and their work practices and thought processess and it is eating them up. So to square the circle they build sometimes wnderfully baroque logical and philosophical constructions to attempt to achiev this. A proportion of them then go on the net and in good engineering style offer their constructions for destructive testing…
I feel sorry for these guys, but if only they would let go, of either side. Note this does not apply t all engineers, I come from a line of etc. Just that those who go down this route, do self identify as engineers.
btw, there’s even a giant plushy out, now that the time nears…
http://www.pegasuspublishing.com/TVHP518-GiantCthulhu-p-28586.html
yeah, I know, it’s 80.00, but seriously, at over 2 ft. tall and 8 lbs. it’s gotta be worth it.
Ichy, you just made my day. Really. My fiance is going to laugh her ass off and then quickly order one. Our couch is about to be so much cooler.
My fiance is going to laugh her ass off and then quickly order one. Our couch is about to be so much cooler
LOL
if you don’t find one in stock there, try this one:
http://www.animepagoda.com/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=5382
now THAT is a sales pitch.
convinced me, anyway. I plan on grabbing one myself.
Ultimately, science is just reverse engineering ;o)
#16 Pradeep, #40 True Bob: Represent. BSEE ’93, now a parttime PhDECE at the North Avenue trade school.
My feeling is that the best (mostly academic) engineers are much like scientists: we do original research, we publish at conferences and in journals, and we wonder why there’s no entries in the citation database for that awesome paper we published in January (it’ll be considered seminal!!!)
But since “engineering” includes everybody from academic researchers to the guy doing PLC programming at the pretzel plant, you’re bound to get a few wingnuts. I’ve worked with one YEC, and so has pretty much everyone I’ve known (not the same guy…).
Oh, this again…
I’m too lazy to look it up, but there was a study down a while back (about a year or so), which showed that people in the applied sciences (doctors, engineers etc) were far less likely to be creationists than the population at large. BUT, for creationists, it was far more likely that someone had an applied science background than a pure science background – of course, the sheer numbers of graduates from the respective disciplines would assure that fact, but there was apparently a difference in percentages as well.
As an engineer, I have often pondered how that could be, and I finally decided that it was a question of selection bias. Scientists deal with questions that do not yet have answers – they are required to be sceptical to do their job. In the applied sciences this is not necessarily the case. You can have a reasonably successful career never doing anything which hasn’t been done before. That said, the best engineers are those that know how to go and seek answers in the unknown, to be truly innovative. I imagine the same would hold true of doctors if they were allowed to do experiments on their subjects :-)
Forrest (#45): I agree mostly with your points.
Engineers are (mostly) journeymen (and women) doing specific techincal tasks within an overall design framework set by others. Because of this, they can compartmentalize relatively easily.
I don’t think EEs, MEs, CivEs, CompEs, or ChemEs are much different culturally or metaphysically (I’ve worked with them all). I’ve known many fervent evangelical Christian ones (mega-church goers, Chr-rockers, etc.) I haven’t heard any openly advocate for YEC though. Probably some do, privately.
I agree that scientists are probably more likely to reject supernaturalism than engineers. Engineers are just like any other “wo/man on the street.”
I’ve heard the CivE joke expressed as the rules of plumbing: 1. shit flows downhill, 2. Payday’s on Friday, and 3. Don’t bite your nails. Having replaced some toilets lately, I can relate to #3.
How about this one:
Three engineers: ME, EE, and CivE, are in the bar, discussing religion (origins, if you like). The ME says, “it’s obvious Hank (God) is an ME: just look at all the beautiful levers and cables of the bones and tendons and muscles he created!” The EE retorts, “No way. Hank is an EE: look at the amazing nervous system that uses electrical impulses [ChemEs rising up now in protest!], he is DEFINITELY an EE.” The CivE chimes in, “You’re both completely wrong. Conclusive proof that Hank is a CivE: Who else would put a waste-disposal facility right in the middle of a great recreational area?!”
(I know I’m descended from an african ape from something like 1-2 MYA.)
Or, my favorite joke:
Q: What did the hotdog vendor say to the zen master?
A: Let me make you one with everything.
–JB (BCivE, Univ of Minn. ’84, some of us old fart CivEs can work a computer too!)
Jenny (#69): I like your analysis. It fits with my experiences of engineers and scientists.
#37: I’m biased, but I think that the “dissent is un-American” response is even worse – it seems to imply that the holders of this opinion cannot effectively defend their positions against reasoned argument, which implies that either their positions are wrong/counterproductive or that they are not defensibly right, and that others should hold those positions anyway. The wish to force others to share your position, knowing that your position is indefensible, would seem to be equivalent to naked aggression paired with a willingness to destroy oneself and others in the process – a pretty good instantiation of evil. It sounds too much like the bad guys in Atlas Shrugged to be anything good, that’s for sure.
Little Cthulu in a shop in San Rafael, California, for your edification and amusement.
What I want to know about divine medical interventions, which no believer seems to address, is what happened to those that prayed and died? If there is a causal relationship between prayer and cure, as some claim, why did it breakdown? Were the prayers defective? Wasn’t the supplicant pious enough? Was the god too busy? Why? Why? Why?
I have to say that as a member of the ACS, I am very proud of the editor of C&EN, Rudy Baum. He get a lot of crap when he defends evolution and global warming.
…there was a study down a while back (about a year or so), which showed that people in the applied sciences (doctors, engineers etc) were far less likely to be creationists than the population at large. BUT, for creationists, it was far more likely that someone had an applied science background than a pure science background…
sounds like something John Stuart Mill used to say:
“Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservative.”
Throughout this thread I have heard many things about engineers, some of it true and much of it not. Part of the problem is that the title of engineer is often abused. We have “custodial engineers”, “domestic engineers” and many technicians that call themselves engineers, often without being questioned. Those of us who have a bachelors or masters of science in engineering have a much broader education than many of you think. As an undergraduate in a BSEE program I had to take the same chemistry, physics, calculus, biology and other science classes as all the people with pure science degrees. These courses were not for example “chemistry for engineers” it was just chemistry. I am an atheist and have been since my early teen years and I consider myself a scientist even though I am not a professional scientist. What I mean by this is that I consider science as the only reliable means of understanding the universe around us and is necessary to avoid the self deception we are all subject to when we only trust our senses.
I like many other engineers, I hope, am embarrassed when one of my fellow engineers wanders off the reservation and delves into subject areas they are unprepared for. For example I have read many “grand unification theories” written by engineers that are either hilarious or deeply depressing depending on one’s point of view. But despite the fact that I enjoy this blog and will not stop reading it, I often am anoyed by being painted with the broad brush many of the commenters apply to engineering. So the next time you feel the urge to grab that broad brush remember Gary Schwartz, Helmut Schmidt and Dean Radin (I know he has a MSEE but he also has a PhD in psychology) before you slap on that thick coat of paint.
Actually, watchinstars, you took the same frosh-soph survey courses that scientists took, but you weren’t in the advanced courses, which for chemistry in PChem, Organic, Biochem, Inorganic, Quantum Chemistry, Molecular Orbital Theory, etc., where the heavy lifting was done. There is a popular 2 day short course for industrial chemists titled, “Chemical Engineering for Chemists”, basically, its the engineering applications for PChem; thermodynamics, heat and mass transfer, etc. I don’t think that there is a 2 day short course titled. “Chemistry for Chemical Engineers!”
Right, Dino, right. I’m sure you can do Navier-Stokes simulations (with chemical reactions?) after a 2 day course. Very professional this “my research area is more dificult than yours”. And this comes from one ChemEng who took one of these “heavy lifting chemists-only” courses on Quantum Chemistry (for pleasure), and, oops, beated his chemists friends. So please…
And on the role of (good) enigneers on evolution, we just sit and watch the fight (Go pandas!).
To posters here about why engineers are more God believing.
the obvious. they are more intelligent. they represent a greater cross section of America. Including raw common sense. They need sound feet on the ground real life actually works concepts. Evolution is not this.
I always find those who go for “science” are not regular folk.
Engineers do science , in school or job, to accomplish some job. They are not interested in science for its own sake.
The “science” crowd is interested in science because they see it as prestiges, and cutting edge in progress in lots of things and as important in itself. Not doing a job but a lifestyle in learning. Therefore they accept the authority and competence of other scientists without scrunity in fields they are uninvolved in.
In other words they will be evolutionists just because they must accept that the “scientists” in origin subjects are right. They don’t read or think or know anymore then the common man about origin subjects. Yet they will be fervent believers in evolution. They accept the authority as they expect to be excepted themselves in their fields.
oddly enough most science folks are not curious or sceptical about origin “historical sciences” and don’t look at the evidence or lack of it.
A person opinion on origin issues is relevant only if they have closely studied the issues after all. Being a scientist about rocketships doesn’t give you more credibility then a tricker moving the rocket on origin issues unless you have studied it.
Except people who believe in the bible or just God can without much study make their case on basic points. otherwise show me they know the issue before getting their vote.
#80 Robert Byers: I can has a prestiges?
Ruben, point taken, the respective curricula diverged after sophomore year, but I took ‘watchinstars’ comments to mean, “we engineers took just as much science as the science majors.”
But back to Byer’s demon-filled world. To my knowledge, no one has ever claimed that god is a chemist, although some of the prayer outcomes could be seen as divine intervention in basic biochemical pathways. god does indeed work in mysterious ways when you don’t know the science.
Heard a new version of the lord’s prayer, recently, “lord, deliver me not from evil but from those who think that they are you.”
they are more intelligent. they represent a greater cross section of America. Including raw common sense.
leave it to Byers to equate “intelligence” and “common sense”.
tell us why the earth isn’t flat, Byers, or why the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth.
On second thought, don’t.
I’ve got enough of a tan from basking in the “glow” of your ilk ’round these parts of late.
Gee, DINO. You really put me in my place.
If you read my comment carefully you will see that I only wanted to point out that as far as the foundation courses were concerned a science degree in EE is the same as for pure science curriculum. Even as you conceded Ruben’s point you managed to be mildly insulting. Do you really think that I was under the impression that I had the equivalent of a science degree? And yes the respective curricula did diverge after the sophomore year but what do you think we did after we finally got past those pesky science classes, concentrate on soldering and plugging chips into printed circuit boards? The upper-level EE classes built on that foundation with classes that were heavy in theory and only infrequently focused on the practical. Science degrees of engineering are not cook-book exercises as many of the comments imply.
What I was trying to get across is that professional scientists have not cornered the market on critical thinking and that engineering has not cornered the market on silly ideas (although Robert Byers (#80) has severely weakened my point). We all should be trying to educate everyone to bring critical thinking skills to as many people as we can, not alienating them.