Zachriel
Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
Freelurker | Quote | | Does anyone here claim that a majority, or even a large percentage, of engineers believes that ID would be useful in the practice of science? Notice that teleology plays no role in the practice of engineering. |
Columbo | Quote | | You’ll have to help me here, Freelurker…. 1) What does majority thinking have to do with correctness? |
Columbo, I believe your statement would be more approprately posed to Gildodgen, Stephen Meyers, IDist, idnet.com.au and DaveScot who made these statements before Freelurker added his simple (and unanswered) query.
Gildodgen offering the text of Meyer’s response to the question, Why are many engineers intrigued by intelligent design theory?
| Quote | | And when you have so many top-level professors of engineering — in mechanical, electrical or software engineering — saying, I think we’re looking at systems that clearly show evidence of design, I think the Darwinists have a serious problem. If they can’t persuade those people, that the 19th-century mechanism of selection and variation is up to this task, I think that the theory is in serious trouble. |
IDist | Quote | | A very good number of medical doctors are skeptical of darwinisim, and I think they count as biologists. |
IDist | Quote | | BTW, any idea about when the updated version of the dissent list will be available? |
idnet.com.au | Quote | | ID will become main stream within 5-10 years and the vast majority of accademia, who have only played lip service to the mighty power of RM+NS, in order to maintain their social respectability, will discard the myth without another thought. |
DaveScot | Quote | | It appears that engineers, medical doctors, and mathematicians are more likely than others to reject the chance hypothesis for the origin of life. |
--------------
You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.
|
?
