Joined: Oct. 2006
|Quote (dogdidit @ Mar. 24 2008,10:31)|
I feel I should apologize for not using my name as my username when I came aboard.
No need to apologize; many of us here choose to remain anonymous.
... my thirty plus years of experience in radar and communications engineering told me to sit up and pay closer attention. Hey, that's MY stuff!
Greetings from a fellow engineer. There are a few of us who comment here and who are critical of ID.
|I've grown weary from engineers' frequent resort to (bad) reasoning by analogy - the brain as a computer, DNA as software -|
Please be careful with that broad brush! That behavior is typical of ID/Creationist engineers; analogies are all they have. Also watch for their continual equivocation on the word "design."
|and I was suspicious that this was another example of a misleading metaphor. Or is this a term commonly encoutered in genetics or molecular biology?|
I've been wondering about that too. The biologists here were more tolerant of the signal-and-noise analogy than I expected.
As to bFast, we are talking about a guy who agrees with a statement that engineering can be methodologically non-materialistic. Too bad the moderator at UD didn't let me follow up on that one.
And now bFast has gone back to the cloister.
BTW, hats off to Zachriel, who set the best example of how bFast's comments should be handled. And a slight hat tip to bFast himself, who at least tried to do some modelling, not just philosophizing.
Edit: 1)fixed link, 2)
more than a few
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