Joined: Oct. 2006
I guess they didn't like the way the "ID is instinctive to engineers" discussion was going; my last comment didn't make it through moderation:
|Timaeus @192: But from an engineering perspective, intelligent design is the instinctive “default” explanation. It makes the most sense of what we can see plainly with our eyes.|
That is your opinion. But you presume to speak for the general population of engineers. The argument by analogy works for you, so you insist that it should work for everyone else. As you well know, it doesn't. It is the height of arrogance for you to set yourself up as the judge of true engineering instincts. It's a fraud to be telling scientists and other non-engineers that belief in ID is instinctive for engineers.
Engineering is materialistic and mechanistic. ID is neither. Engineers want to know "what happened" and "how does it work." ID doesn't provide that. The theory of evolution is an extrapolation backwards in time of processes we see in action today. You don't agree with it, but that's not the point; it is perfectly natural for engineers to accept that theory, and they largely do.
You and I both look forward to getting more engineers in on the discussion. The problem is that it's been too easy for engineers to ignore the ID movement. IDists need to be much more public about the way they are describing engineering to non-engineers. You need to get the DI to put out some press releases disseminating such IDist notions as "ID is an engineering science," "ID is reverse engineering," and "Engineers instinctively believe in ID." You will get plenty of negative attention from engineers, including those of faith, when they see you misrepresenting their profession to advance your cause.
I thank the others who chimed in.
Edited to add: ["ID is an engineering science" comes from Dembski & Marks. "ID is reverse engineering" comes from Sal Cordova.]
Edited again to add: The comment showed up the next day, but of course by then it was way back in the thread.
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