asavage

Electronic Engineering degrees are questionable in Canada IIRC. You can get one from a two year program at Devry and it is not considered by anyone as a real engineering degree.

I am almost finished an Electrical Engineering degree. It maybe be bacause I live in Victoria, but i don't know anyone that is religious at all, let alone a creationist in Engineering at my school.

Applied Science is still Science. I do agree that most engineers don't engage in making new discoveries about the physical world, but apply what others have found.

There are also a lot of people with science degrees that doen't do science research either.

There is still a lot of engineers especially profs, that do a lot of research that is 'science'. Like furthering electromagnetic theory or theromdynamics.

Anyone with a real engineering degree could do research in their field. An electrical engineer could do research in many areas dealing with electricity, electrical and magnetic fields, and the electrical properties of matterials.

RufusAtticus

No, applied science is technology.

Albion

Speaking as a chemistry graduate (although with a research background in theory rather than practical work), I've been somewhat embarrassed by the large number of YECs who seem to be chemists (or biochemists). I've often wondered if there's some connection between the way YECs seem to be overrepresented in chemistry and the fact that chemistry is one of the sciences that tends not to deal in historical concepts, unlike astrophysics, geology, and many areas of biology.

echoes

I am not in disagreement with this position. What's an example of a principle of engineering vs. a principle of science? And are they mutually exclusive?

When someone attempts to replicate an experiment to verify someone else's findings, this is considered a scientific endeavor.

When an engineer designs and tests something, they are also testing to see if someone else's findings hold true. For example, every time an electrical engineer builds a circuit, he is verifying Ohm's law- he has a hypothesis that Ohm's law will hold true, and the circuit he designs will serve to test that hypothesis. While the primary purpose of the engineer's work isn't to verify others findings, it happens all the time. Despite that, could it still be considered science?

Principia

Heh. And some engineers would say that no, science is just reverse engineering.

Cheiron

See i'm not so sure about that, as a math major/comp sci minor, I really have to say that being in Comp Sci would really discourage the belief in a creator deity.

Why?
As any programmer knows, a good design works, and works forever. As you look around you, it is quite easy to see that either the universe was designed badly, or not at all, and a bad designer is not omnipotent. As for the "fall" cop-out, a good program, no matter how stupid the user is, will still work and work well. Not to mention the "order" fascination that most comp sci geeks have. If it doesn't occur orderly it shouldn't occur at all So you make it impossible for the user to screw it up.

As for math, Mathematics is too closely related to philosophy, and most philosophers i know are not religious in the traditional sense. Mathematics is very concrete, with the standard assumptions, ie 1+1 = 2, 1*1 = 1 etc. However, these assumptions may be false, and we just can't see anything but 1+1 =2. Ah philosphy, way to fucked up.

Worldtraveller

[cheapshot] yeah? well, you're ugly and your mother dresses ya funny!! [/cheapshot] (I know it was a joke, so is mine)

Quote:

My real point is, the central pupose of engineering research is to push the boundaries of technology, not pure knowledge of the natural world. While there or some engineers who would take an interest in evolutionary biology, one can have a sucessful or even brilliant career in an engineering field with the topic of evolution or the big bang or the age of the earth or any of the other nasty things that would draw conflict with a YEC worldview ever entering into consideration. We know this, but most people just see scientists, mathematcians, engineers, computer programmers, &c., as just an amorphous mass of "smart people" with any one's opinion on biology as good as any other's. Therefore trotting out an electrical engineer who believes in YECism looks to them just the same as trotting out a YEC-believing heavily published molecular biologist to them. Naturally, they'd prefer to have the latter as spokesmen, but because of the above, YEC engineers are 90% as good and a lot more common. And because they belong to the generic "smart people" group, they seem so much more credible to the average creationist, so they're encouraged to be vocal, yadda, yadda, yadda.

I agree, and this is where the real rub is. My degree is in Aerospace Engineering, so I always joke about being a 'rocket scientist'. Unfortunately, most people don't know the difference between a practicing engineer who uses usualy well known principles to design new products (occasionally) or more often to simply make a variation or improvment on an existing design.

There are research engineers out there who, IMHO, qualify much more as 'scientists' than me, by a long shot!

But to the non scientific layperson, my degree might as well be in astrophysics and cosmology. If some church wanted to trot me out (assuming I were YEC or an IDiot, or whatever), the congregation wouldn't be discerning enough, and the average reader of thier various websites wouldn't either. It's the classic appeal to authority/reliance on ignorance combination that makes it such a powerful argument (seemingly) for the ID movement.

Kind of reminds me of one of my favorite jokes I heard in school.
A science major asks "How does it work?"
An engineering major asks "How do we make it better?"
A philosopy major asks "Why does it work that way?"
A liberal arts major asks "Do ya want fries with that?"

-Lane

Boro Nut

Why? Did you evolve into something else?

Boro Nut

RBH

This from an engineer (according to his profile) on ARNDoes population genetics even exist for this guy?

RBH

DMB

Can somebody please explain what nickb's post in ARN, quoted by RBH, is supposed to mean? I know all the words he has used, but I don't follow his argument at all.