HRG

Two answers have already been given, with which I fully concur. I'd like to point out one additional creationist misunderstanding:

The 2LoT does not say that "disorder is increasing", it says that "entropy is increasing" (in a closed system). The two are not the same; there are simple examples where entropy production goes hand in hand with the emergency of order (so-called dissipative structures).

Regards,
HRG.

Kent Stevens

The second law of thermodynamics does not mean that open systems will necessarily increase in disorder. Open systems allow matter and energy into or outside their boundaries.

You and any creationist are examples of open systems. You have experienced an increase in order with your development from when you were much younger. This happening does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Likewise evolution operates as an open system. It allows life to increase in order over a period of time from when the earth was much younger. This happening does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

On the original topic, engineers are more likely to be atheists than people in general. I think that "uneducated" people would tend to be more fundamentalist than anyone else, no matter what their religion was.

Steven S

Not here but on other forums I have poked fun at or criticized engineers. In my experience a disproportionate number of cranks (I don't mean just creationists but those people disputing well established physical theories like SR, QM, etc) have turned out to be people with engineering backgrounds. I do not know why this is. Perhaps some engineers think having some technical knowledge is the same as having physical knowledge.

KeithHarwood

This has been my experience as well, and it applies not only to physical theories but also to economic and accounting systems as well, to the extent that they attempt to work professionally in these fields with no training.

Disclaimer. I was trained in science but have spent most of my career in engineering. I refused to implement a (very particular) accounting system for a paying customer because they wouldn't give me the assistance of someone who was trained in accounting. They gave the job to another engineer who agreed with my boss that a degree in engineering automatically qualified one in accounting.

Late_Cretaceous

Copernicus wrote "Scientists want to know what will happen after they do something. Engineers want to know what will happen before they do something."

I like that. I am gonna post it in my office at work.

Quetzal

Liquid: I don't think "engineers" per se are any more guilty of magical thinking than anyone else. However, it does appear that, of all disciplines that could be considered "scientific", engineers seem over-represented on the cretinist side, followed by chemists and the random physicist. No, I don't have statistics to back up my assertion, just anecdotal experience from debating cretinists. They are, of course, vastly outnumbered by the True Believers (TM) with no scientific training whatsoever.

I am currently involved in debates on two different fora with ME's who are adamantly cretinist. One insists that evolution is invalid because it doesn't explain "form, function, maintenance" (whatever the hell that is), and the other insists that cretinism provides a better explanation for "structural development" (whatever the hell THAT means). Maybe it has something to do with somekind of mindset inherent in mechanical engineering. I have yet to encounter one single biologist (other than Wells - who has his own agenda) who is cretinist, nor have I encountered any other life scientist, geologist, or paleontologist who subscribes to "goddidit". Perhaps you could tell me why this apparent trend exists? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

liquid

Hi everyone - sorry I didn't reply sooner but I was away - catching up now, so I'll say what I can in the time I have.

Peez:-

A comment I both agree and disagree with! It is true that we are not generally trained to the same extent in empirical research as pure scientists, because there is so much more that we have to know. However, we are trained for it to an acceptable degree, particularly at the Masters degree level.

You see, we conduct experiments all the time, just as pure scientists do. We perform reliability tests on components, property tests on materials (material scientists are basically just micro-engineers). We conduct almost all experimentation in macro-physics these days. A simple example is thermodynamics and fluid mechanics experiments.

I did state they are technological achievements, not scientific research achievements. My point was that a lot of what the public consider science is actually performed by engineers, not scientists. Most of high-school physics areas of study is investigated by engineers, not physicists.

This I agree with.

But as an engineer, I was able to spot the rubbish printed about the 2LoT straight away, something that I might not have done if I was not trained. I really think this works both ways.

liquid

copernicus:-

Which might account for some of the misconceptions I think you have. Forgive my defensiveness - it is only natural, but engineers often do things for reasons that might look odd to outsiders but are done for good reasons. After all, you might insist on a change of syntax in a perfectly understandable but incorrect sentence.

I agree when you say that the vast majority are perfectly sensible in their cre/evo stance. I find the darwin/fundy fish thing funny, as neither are particularly common over here in Europe - I am starting to think that a lot of this mess is particularly American.

As for Dilbert.... hmmmmmm.... There are engineers like him. But there are plenty that arent'.

No we aren't! This is the sort of thing I dislike. We conduct all sorts of empirical research - think of Mach, Prandtl, Bernoulli and Stroud in fluid mechanics for instance; all fundamental figures in aerospace engineering, almost ignored in physics textbooks.

This has a grain of truth in it, but we are perfectly capable of innovative hypotheses. For instance, the entire science of reliability was developed by engineers and engineering mathematicians.

I think the problem is that you are comparing industrial engineers with academic scientists. That is not a good or valid comparison. You should look at the surprising similarities between engineers in academia and scientists in academia.

I get your rant...

I will tell you why this is. Safety. Aircraft are lethal machines - a biologist can stick whatever he likes in his petri dish and it shouldn't kill 200 people. We can't do that. We are required by legislators and regulations to stick in all sorts of protective measures and safety factors. It is the law. The commercial aerospace industry has to be notoriously conservative.

Now you compare this to the motor-racing industry, or the competition yaught industry. Here you find a completely different attitude and mindset.

No there shouldn't. We are the only people who know what we are researching and why, and we have our own reasons for our behaviour because we understand the situation.

You might take the cold war as an example. There was a lot of money floating around, and a huge amount of innovation - stealth, ramjets, opto-electronics. Typically promoted engineers managed the companies.

Then there was a shift away from the technically able, to the business-minded. MBAs who understand little more than the bottom line run many of the companies. Innovation has been stifled, not just as a result of budget cuts. The fact is that it is possible to teach most engineers a reasonable amount of business acumen. Try teaching a businessman, who spends his education time writing nebulous essays and reports, the back end of a sine curve and you are in trouble.

I really object to this, being centrist for a European, I probably come across as left-wing in the US. I am certain this is more a symptom of white collar middle America than of engineering.

Steven S:-

Steven, I have a greater knowledge of thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, kinematics, dynamics, and statics than any physicist in my university. Many of my associates know more about biomemetics and biological structures, dynamics and physics than any biologist. I have to say your statement does not hold up on inspection. Physical knowledge is fundamental to everything we do.

Keith Harwood:-

Accounting is a vocational, not an academic skill. You do not take degrees in accounting - economics or business is the closest you get, and accounting is only presented as a sub-module. My university has an MBA rated in the top 50 in the world. You don't have to go near accounting if you don't want to. Chartered accountants take a post-degree qualification. Assuming that the engineer had the skill (which he may well have not, hence your problem), it does not matter what his degree was.

Morpho:-

Quite frankly, those are fairly meaningless buzzwords as far as I can tell. Looks to me like they are exploiting their authority to persuade, though I would need to see more. If you want to run some stuff by me, please do. I can't see how they get the impression it is a structural engineering issue in any case.

As for the apparent trend - I am sure it is largely a US phenomenon, based on what I have heard. I supect that being used to design is part of it, although I would hope for better critical thinking personally. But there is something else, I feel, that remains uncovered.

lpetrich

On the subject of engineering and design, I think that comparisons with human design are actually a good framework for understanding evolution. Let us consider the design hypothesis itself. The hypothesis of an omnipotent and omniscient designer cannot really explain why there is one design instead of some other; one is dependent on some hypothesis about that entity's intentions for that. However, the hypothesis of finite, fallible, and multiple designers allows for much easier falsifiability:

What were the capabilities of those designers?
Could those designers have done a better job?
How many designers or design teams were there?

And human designers are good examples of such designers; these features are reflected in their output. Path dependence is a common result; designs often depend on a history of previous designs, often for compatibility reasons. Multiplicity is another common result; different design teams will make different choices. Yet another common result is designs often not being greatly different from previous designs; this saves design effort.

These features are present in abundance in the biological world; in fact, these features are what demonstrate evolution.

Further hints on the nature of the design process come from biogeography, especially the biogeography of islands with their distinctive biotas; the "design" process appears to have a range of communication that is no greater than the range over which the designed organisms can naturally travel. That is, travel in the absence of outside intervention.

emphryio

I'm working on my Masters in ME. I think the problem is that some engineers think that they must be really smart because they were able to get an engineering degree, therefore they have more license to talk about their creationists views.

Actually I don't think getting a engineering degree is that big a deal. And you can certainly get one without learning anything about biology.

I've known some creationists engineers, they don't seem to be particularly more common than any other class of people. But they are a bit more willing to argue their position, while flashing big words at you that don't really make much sense.

Underneath the bigger words, they usually are as clueless as Joe Bob from the trailer park when it comes to evolution. Just a lot more confident.