RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2007,20:26   

Sal recently provided another episode of posturing and distortion regarding engineering, science, and ID.

I provided several comments, six of which made it through moderation. Here are the two that did not:
bFast wrote: It turns out that when we examine biological systems, we must envision them to be like the stuff that we humans intelligently design.

You lost me there. Do you mean we must not envision them to be unlike the stuff we humans design? I can envision lots of ways a flagellum is not like anything we have ever designed. Its really marvelous.

By the way, the letter weve been talking about says that physiologists model biological systems in a manner that engineers use to model other systems (specifically, as black boxes with input-output relations.) Nowhere does he say that the resulting biological models must be like the models of systems built by engineers.

StuHarris and bFast,

Im having trouble with this idea that engineering is non-materialistic. (In fact, I find it absurd.) Could you give an example of engineering work where a non-materialistic approach was used? An example from your own work would be ideal.

I gather that the moderator did not want me to pursue the ideas of StuHarris and bFast. He accurately assessed that it would not have gone well for them at all.

And I so wanted to hear about non-materialistic engineering ;)

Invoking intelligent design in science is like invoking gremlins in engineering. [after Mark Isaak.]
All models are wrong, some models are useful. - George E. P. Box

  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]