Let me know if you don't want to dialog with an IDer. I visited UCLA a few years back when my son was about to start there. The dean of engineering gave a presentation to a packed auditorium, and effectively defined engineering as this:
Engineering = Science + ID
Being an engineer myself, and doing scientific and engineering simulations as a profession, this seems quite good to me. Thus, I am compelled to agree with your title: ID is not science. Creation science is a silly concept, but then again, the pronouncements from "the other side of the campus" are just as silly. Shermer, like most Darwinists, is from "the other side of the campus", which is the non-techy side that doesn't have ID as a focus, so I think he is mainly talking from ignorance.
Anyway, my kids learned something else while ace-ing the various California government approved biology classes: "Any answer is correct, as long as it mentions evolution!". I am curious what you think of my observation:
1) A genius equipped with physics equations is frequently overwhelmed in explaining a simple phenomenon - like how someone balances on a unicycle. The mathematics quickly overwhelms.
2) A mediocre biologist, equipped with evolution, can explain any biological phenomenon, no matter how complex.
For those of us who view the university campus as composed of a tech/engineering side, and "the other side", this is both routinely observed and easy to explain. What do you think?
I doubt you'll see this - I tried to find an email for you but couldn't.
I wasn't ignoring you, I just saw your comment today.
It's funny, really, but I've met more engineers who oppose evolution and buy into ID than any other professional group. My W.A.G. would be because everything they do IS ID.
If you want to pursue a discussion, I would be happy to. Contact me by email and we'll do it that way...it's easier than filling up these little boxes.
Posts
Let me know if you don't want to dialog with an IDer. I visited UCLA a few years back when my son was about to start there. The dean of engineering gave a presentation to a packed auditorium, and effectively defined engineering as this:
ReplyDeleteEngineering = Science + ID
Being an engineer myself, and doing scientific and engineering simulations as a profession, this seems quite good to me. Thus, I am compelled to agree with your title: ID is not science. Creation science is a silly concept, but then again, the pronouncements from "the other side of the campus" are just as silly. Shermer, like most Darwinists, is from "the other side of the campus", which is the non-techy side that doesn't have ID as a focus, so I think he is mainly talking from ignorance.
Anyway, my kids learned something else while ace-ing the various California government approved biology classes: "Any answer is correct, as long as it mentions evolution!". I am curious what you think of my observation:
1) A genius equipped with physics equations is frequently overwhelmed in explaining a simple phenomenon - like how someone balances on a unicycle. The mathematics quickly overwhelms.
2) A mediocre biologist, equipped with evolution, can explain any biological phenomenon, no matter how complex.
For those of us who view the university campus as composed of a tech/engineering side, and "the other side", this is both routinely observed and easy to explain. What do you think?
Looney...
ReplyDeleteI doubt you'll see this - I tried to find an email for you but couldn't.
I wasn't ignoring you, I just saw your comment today.
It's funny, really, but I've met more engineers who oppose evolution and buy into ID than any other professional group. My W.A.G. would be because everything they do IS ID.
If you want to pursue a discussion, I would be happy to. Contact me by email and we'll do it that way...it's easier than filling up these little boxes.