Replies

I was doing some thinking about why it seems that nine times out of ten if you run across someone who’s a scientist and a creationist, they’re an engineer (whose rule is that?)

I think it’s because engineers are technologists. They work with human technology building human tools. With rare exceptions the natural world isn’t relevant to their area of expertise.

Because of this, people who have a creationist mindset and go into engineering tend to have the one-tool problem (”to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail”). They’re used to working with technology, so when they see a system that appears organized, they conclude an organizer must have organized it. Other people who go into the natural sciences and start out with a creationist mindset (like me) are confronted with evidence from the natural world that not everything that appears designed is designed, and that there are ways that organization can develop in a stepwise manner.

I think the ardent creationist engineer’s allergy to evidence is shared with all ardent creationists, and not related to their field of study. After all, they’re self-selected—creationists who look at the evidence soon become ex-creationists, leaving the creationist pot enriched with the evidence-blind.

so basically you’re saying “Nature dun it and that’s good enough for me,. no need to explain or even investigate”? Lol- 9 times out of ten eh? Got any stats on that?

Allergy to evidence eh? Lol- like the allergy to devestating evidence against Macroevolution? That kind of allergy?

When you can show that highly complex irreducible systems ARE infact “Nature dun doing it” then by all means, present it here- until then, it would appear you have an allergy to evidence that suggests that a designer is infact needed to assemble highly complex irreducible organsisms

Oh, and by the way, for htose that care about the truth- the ‘stepwise organizations’ Ahayes refers to are absolutely moot systems of overly simplistic elements that follow natural laws- not the highly complex irreducibly complex systems that supposedly broke every natural law known to man in order to assemble TRILLIONS of higher and higher ‘stepwise organizations’ to create ever increasing, ever law breaking highly complex systems.

Nice try Ahayes, but if you’re going to deride somethign you don’t agree with- at least be intellectually honest about it!

I was doing some thinking about why it seems that nine times out of ten if you run across someone who’s a scientist and a creationist, they’re an engineer (whose rule is that?)...

Salem's Law or Salem Hypothesis

Salem Hypothesis np.
Conjecture that an education in the engineering disciplines forms a predisposition to Scientific Creationism viewpoints. Due to longtime t.o. regular Bruce Salem. New Creationist or Theistic Anti-Evolutionist posters whose credentials include EE, CSE, ME, or other brands of engineering are noted as "data points for the Salem Hypothesis". (My own personal experience indicates that of engineering disciplines, EE's are most often encountered in SciCre-ist postings. I don't believe that I have ever seen a chemical engineering SciCre-ist, on the other hand.)

I was doing some thinking about why it seems that nine times out of ten if you run across someone who’s a scientist and a creationist, they’re an engineer (whose rule is that?)

The one I've heard is that 9/10 creationist "scientists" you run across will be electrical engineers specifically. This doesn't reflect badly on electrical engineers, of course, because the majority of us are not creationists, being big fans of science.