…and this is a 
Hey gang! Want to see something depressing?
Category: Creationism
Posted on: August 1, 2007 5:54 PM, by PZ Myers
Here's a representative slice of average Americana: Parade magazine. I don't read it, and I suspect most of you don't either, but we aren't average—we're freaky flaky outliers. If you want to see what ordinary Americans are thinking, though, it's a useful place to look. Right now they have a very short article on the creation museum with a pol that asks, "Do you believe dinosaurs could have existed alongside early humans?"
About a third of the respondents currently answer "yes," which is actually quite a bit better than I feared. The real scary part is the comments, though, and there are a lot of them. Here's a quick sampling of the creationist point of view:
Question????When the dinosaurs were destroyed,how come mankind was not destroyed with them?As we also would have been elimated.
By the tone of your article you seem to be ignoring the many scientists who do not agree with the Billions of years age of the earth. As an engineer with a masters degree, i have many questions about some of the claims of the old earth guyes. I have many books from several scientific fields that look at the evidence available and come to a different conclusion.Your "scientists" are ignoring discoveries that support the presence of dinosaurs in recent times. Like zealeous Prosecutors, they seem to be unwilling to look at anything that doesn't help prove their case.
the Bible clearly says all things were made by God appr. 6400 years ago.If you believe the Bible, then no problem.If you think a day has a different length of time then 24 hours, then you don't believe the Bible and you are just blowing with the wind and you'll believe anything you want to. How do you know that dino's were mean & scarey? Of course they rode the ark...BABIES MAYBE?
I am a college professor in Mathematics and visited the Creation Museum a little over a week ago. I found it both fascinating and meaningful. The exhibits were world class and highly instructive. And the planetarium is, perhaps, the best in the world. I highly recommend it.
If dinosaurs died out millions of years ago how is it possible that their bones have not completely decomposed? I understand fossils being that old ... but do you really think bones could last that long? The earth is not as old as some might project.
I think it's about time someone made a good museum that tells the truth, instead of telling people what our schools and litterature are telling them.
Key words in a definition of the word science are observable, subject to experimentation, verifiable and repeatable. Did any scientist observe,verify or perform an experiment that indicates that dinosaurs were extinct 64 million years before man appeared or that Noah had trouble finding a pair of dinosaurs? Those who make these statements are outside the realm of science.
Pretty dismal stuff, isn't it? A few brave people are putting up rebuttals, but it's like a whole rising sea of treacly stupidity out there.
Comments
An engineer and a mathematician. Again with these engineers giving their profession a bad name.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 1, 2007 5:59 PM
What is up with the creationist/engineer thing?
phat
Posted by: phat | August 1, 2007 6:03 PM
Yeah, let's all read the bible, because that's the only source of truth. Then we won't have to worry about ethanol (not in the bible), oil (not in the bible), TB (not in the bible) among caribou (not in the bible).
Hell, half the things I eat aren't in the bible. According to the bible, I must weigh at least 45 pounds less.
Woo-hoo! C'mon ladies, I'm svelt and sexy!
Posted by: Brownian | August 1, 2007 6:04 PM
No True Engineer would believe in creationism.
Yeah, those creato-geneers really get on my nerves. I are one, and everything engineerey is based on practical application of science. Arrrrgh! I am so disappointed that my fellow engineers believe in magic and pixies.
Posted by: True Bob | August 1, 2007 6:13 PM
Oh. I just threw up a little in my mouth when I read the comments.
Posted by: Kay OH | August 1, 2007 6:19 PM
I happen to be an engineer. My pride in that was quickly squashed when I got out in the working world and ran into "an engineer with a masters degree" discussing a shuttle mission. We were listening to the radio and the NASA spokesman was explaining how the shuttle had turn around so it could fire it's engine to get out of its orbit.
After trying to discuss this with this "engineer with a masters degree", I was struck dumb with the realisation that he didn't understand basic orbital mechanics or the idea of inertia.
Shortly after that, I ran into another engineer who sincerely told me he didn't need anymore training because he learned all he would ever need to know in school (the company built computerized security systems).
Posted by: Thought Provoker (aka Quantum Quack) | August 1, 2007 6:19 PM
I'm a geophysicist and an atheis; all of my family are looney-tunes christians, all of whom believe the biblical bullshit doled out by slimy preachers like Haggard, and smarmy con-men like Ken Ham. It's depressing indeed.
PZ, you are completely correct in your view that reading Parade magazine is a way to find out what the average American thinks about. Actually, I don't think the average American thinks about much at all.
Reading the comments after the Parade article is horrifying.
Posted by: waldteufel | August 1, 2007 6:21 PM
Ironic that the article appears under the heading 'Intelligence Report.'
Posted by: MartinM | August 1, 2007 6:24 PM
or that Noah had trouble finding a pair of dinosaurs?
Of course Noah didn't have trouble finding a pair of dinosaurs. Noah didn't have trouble finding whatever you want, my creationist friend. Anything you want, you just say it and Noah didn't have trouble finding it. There, now everything is okay in happy land again for you. :-)
Posted by: 386sx | August 1, 2007 6:24 PM
Aren't engineers alot like dentists?
Posted by: Steve_C | August 1, 2007 6:25 PM
I suspect the reason we hear so much about creationist engineers are two-fold. The first is that engineers have some of the "smart technical guy" mystique that scientists have in the popular view (which, yes, usually does imagine both as guys) and thus are easy enough for the general public to conflate with people who know something about science, so creationist engineers, who seem to be more numerous than creationist scientists, can be deployed as illusionary buttresses for the creationists' case. The reason they're more numerous, I suspect, is that despite being highly technical engineers aren't required to think like scientists, and are likely to be somewhat biased towards thinking of complex things in terms of design since that's what they do all day.
Hmm. I could have phrased that more articulately, I suppose...
The thing that appalls me is that so many of these people who claim to be engineers or doctors or mathematicians and so on write in a fashion that's almost impossible to square with the level of education needed to legitimately practice those professions.
Posted by: Azkyroth | August 1, 2007 6:25 PM
What's up with all the engineers and mathematicians? Well, they are not any different than any other non-biologist: They are laymen, from a biology point of view. Just because you studied xyz doesn't make you a universal science genius.
I am a computer scientist, and while I have specialized in SofComputing, which includes Evolutionary Algorithms as a sub-field, my knowledge of EvoDevo is far from the level that a biologist would have. The CS department at my school is attached to the natural sciences and we probably get taught more of a science than an engineering approach, which differentiates us from most German universities as far as CS is concerned. Other people get taught the same subject in an engineering manner, which, I presume, emphasizes a `design' perspective.
So, you have a bunch of people running around, who have a university degree but are not scientists. They have little idea regarding scientific methods (although they might be great engineers/doctors/mathematicians) and even less knowledge of biology, BUT they have an opinion. And that's a bad combination: no clue + bad opinion = nonsense argument
So, there actually should not be a question like "what's with the engineers/dentists etc."
They are just amateurs who actually have no idea about the details of biology but an opinion about religion... like most people. And that is true especially for engineers, because what they do is build and design, they have that view of the world and transfer it to other fields... -> unable to think outside their own box
Posted by: TheJerrylander | August 1, 2007 6:28 PM
All too often, an engineer's brain is a closed system.
Posted by: idlemind | August 1, 2007 6:28 PM
Sometimes I turn on the Fox News or look at a People or Parade magazine or some such just for kicks. I always end up a little closer to jamming an ice pick into some soft part of my head. But I AM getting better at dealing with it. I've found it is best to just sort smile a little bit. You know that Christian smile. Sure I die a little on the inside, but people will never stop being stupid.
Posted by: Kay OH | August 1, 2007 6:28 PM
Actually, this might not be a pro-Cretinism comment; it might just be a poorly spelled attempt to apply logic to one particular piece of Cretinist stupidity.
In that light it's a fair question. If humans and dinosaurs ever co-existed, how could one be destroyed but not the other?
Posted by: Warren | August 1, 2007 6:30 PM
"Question????When the dinosaurs were destroyed,how come mankind was not destroyed with them?As we also would have been elimated."
I can read this comment as a poorly worded (and spelled) criticism of the museum. If I may attempt to rephrase: "Query: if dinosaurs and mankind co-existed as the creationists claim, and some event occurred to destroy the dinosaurs, why didn't that event also eliminate us? HA! PWNED!!!!"
Posted by: John | August 1, 2007 6:31 PM
Ooh! Ooh! I've got it!
The dinosaurs simply disappeared. They were Raptured straight into Heaven.
See, they've been misreading the Bible all of these years: the Second Coming was all about the dinosaurs, who were the only ones worthy of being Saved. The rest of us have been living in that 1000 year thingy that comes after Armageddon. Or is it Armageddon? I can't keep the mythology straight: all I know is that the dinosaurs are gone because Jesus took them to Heaven.
Posted by: John | August 1, 2007 6:37 PM
Question????When the dinosaurs were destroyed,how come mankind was not destroyed with them?As we also would have been elimated.
Man, I initially thought this was the beginning of a sane comment, until I realized it was supposed to be an argument in favor of creationism...
Posted by: Chris | August 1, 2007 6:38 PM
"...all I know is that the dinosaurs are gone because Jesus took them to Heaven."
And you can take it from me, 'cause I'm an engineer.
Posted by: John | August 1, 2007 6:39 PM
The capacity for Americans to speak out of their asses is astounding. What % of those folks above are in any position to dispute the scientific evidence? Part of the blame has got to go to talk show culture, where everyone is democratically "entitled" to whatever inane opinions they might have.
Without the benefit of polls, it's difficult to flip on the TV and ascertain whether a particular position is held by 75%, 99%, or 99.999% of scientists. That .001% becomes a human interest story, and winds up getting a disproportionate amount of attention.
As for engineers, toss in mathematicians and programmers. Their fields don't really require them to keep their feet on the ground and stay in touch with the interlocking pieces that make up the world. They can neatly stow all the God stuff in one corner of the brain, and the math in another...compartmentalization.
Posted by: ngong | August 1, 2007 6:44 PM
It's stupid out there.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | August 1, 2007 6:48 PM
Of course Dinosaurs & Man coexisted... Some rich guy made a dinosaur theme park on a small island near Costa Rica. Michael Crichton wrote it, so it must be true, right?
Posted by: K. Engels | August 1, 2007 6:49 PM
Hey, how else am I going to get my weekly fill of Howard Huge?
Posted by: Bruce | August 1, 2007 6:51 PM
Is this any surprise coming from a weekly circular which has on its very first page questions about celebrities? and carries an question/answer column from the person who claims to have the worlds highest IQ?
Gah ... didn't realize they had a website now....
Posted by: yoshi | August 1, 2007 6:54 PM
Posted by: grendelkhan | August 1, 2007 6:57 PM
Parade is bundled with one of my Sunday newspapers. I usually give it a quick scan over breakfast to see what's going on in hoi polloi land. Marilyn Vos Savant is sometimes entertaining (although not to be trusted too far when she pontificates on math; she went off the rails on the Wiles proof of Fermat's Last Theorem) and "Walter Scott's Personality Parade" is not to be missed. Why? It's ghosted by none other than Edward Klein (the hack writer responsible for the misnamed Truth About Hillary). Klein sometimes runs a right-wing banner up the flagpole just to see if anyone salutes. It bears watching with a sharp eye. Daily Kos had a post about Klein about a month ago: [Link]
Posted by: Zeno | August 1, 2007 6:57 PM
Parade, National Geographic... What's the difference?
Okay, I'm done being sarcastic now.
Posted by: MikeM | August 1, 2007 7:00 PM
Meh. Bunch of folks running the standard creobot playbook page by page.
"Carbon dating is flawed."
"Where are all the transitionals."
"Mutations are not evolution."
"It takes more faith..."
"You have no evidence."
"The Bible says..."
Call them on any of their nonfactual claims, and they whip out the persecution banner while simultaneously claiming they just can't see why evolutionists are so ignorant. (and mean)
Generally I dive into such frays for the sake of the lurkers who might be swayed, but are there any present? Are there any non-mouthbreathing habitual readers of Parade?
Posted by: Sean | August 1, 2007 7:04 PM
Maybe these engineers are train drivers?
I hope so...
Posted by: Bruce | August 1, 2007 7:04 PM
The general public has such a warped idea of Engineers, it is no wonder that Engineers are a bit warped too. I have friends who think I wear a white lab coat and work in a lab - possibly with chemicals, rubber gloves and a wild-haired inventor type. (I design electronic hardware via CAD in my cube. We do have a lab, but no lab coats.)
I've met one MSEE who believed in Bigfoot, conspiracy theories, and everything UFO. Another with a BS in comp sci was sure he found an 'error' in thermodynamics that could be exploited for free energy. One of my engineering friends got his civil engineering degree in Europe, and his Masters in computer science here in the states - usually a level-headed guy, but he absolutely believes that at least some crop circles could not have been created by humans.
It's enough to make me weep sometimes.
Posted by: Calladus | August 1, 2007 7:05 PM
Gah! I've just been driven blind by stupidity.
(...at least I can't read the poll comments any more.)
Posted by: Dave | August 1, 2007 7:06 PM
Holy crumbling...! ACK!
Help me.
I'm having a Kornbluth moment.
I don't want to believe in the marching morons. I don't. I don't. I don't. I don't.
Please. Help me.
Posted by: Kseniya | August 1, 2007 7:06 PM
To anyone just joining this thread, don't click on the link. Just don't. It will only make things worse.
Posted by: Don | August 1, 2007 7:17 PM
"jll1920: Evolution would require that the same bacteria would change its own cells and become something more complex, say a lizard."
Or say, a peacock. Hey, why not a whale with a monkey tail. What were we talking about again? Ah right, praise jesus!
Maybe you should start stressing that doing your own "research" is not for everyone.
Posted by: DutchDelight | August 1, 2007 7:24 PM
I wonder how some of these people would respond if it was pointed out to them that even if the theory of evolution is totally wrong it doesn't automatically follow that their version of creation is correct.
Posted by: tim gueguen | August 1, 2007 7:30 PM
See, this is why I don't subscribe to the newspaper. Why don't they ask questions like:
Do you believe that some species of mammalia coexisted with the dinosaurs and survived the dinosaur extinction, and eventually evolved into the different species we see now?
Do you believe that the human species will soon make the earth uninhabitable for all life forms, or do you think that even if humans turn out to be an evolutionary dead end, other forms of life will adapt and survive on the planet?
Do you believe that intelligent forms of life exist on the planet Earth?
Posted by: Robert Kamper | August 1, 2007 7:52 PM
I agree with an above poster (forgot your handle but you know who you are anyway), engineers frequently espouse stupid opinions on evolution because they are like any other non-biologist. They approach the subject as a layman. The problem is that their egos are inflated beyond proportion by cultural prejudices toward science, which leads many of them to the erroneous that their ignorant opinions are worth the bandwidth they take up in comment threads.
I do, however, take issue with the idea that engineers (and medical professionals, if you wish to include them) adpot these opinions because their thinking is inherently unscientific. A lot of engineering and medicine is very research intensive and does force it's practioners to think like scientists. Certainly, that's not always the case. But I also think it's erroneous to suggest that there is some hard epistemological divide, outside of simple subject specialization, that makes engineering inferior to scientific thinking.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | August 1, 2007 7:53 PM
Do you believe dinosaurs could have existed alongside early humans?"
Well, I'm afraid I'm a member of the ignorant minority. Clearly the answer is 'Yes". I know of no law of nature that renders it impossible for dinosaurs to have existed alongside early humans. They just didn't, as a matter of fact. (Seriously, when a question is so badly posed we shouldn't assume anything about those who answer it one way or another).
Posted by: Neil | August 1, 2007 7:57 PM
Please...someone tell me this is straight from "The Onion."
Posted by: Loc | August 1, 2007 8:07 PM
If you ever want to be entertained by drivil, replace "believe" with "strong evidence"...
If you have strong evidence Jesus existed, and you have strong evidence he said what he said, then you have strong evidence for Job, Noah, Adam and Eve, Jonah and the whale, Moses and other historical, biblical figures are real people and the 'stories' are real because...
Posted by: Tatarize | August 1, 2007 8:08 PM
I know of no law of nature that renders it impossible for dinosaurs to have existed alongside early humans. They just didn't, as a matter of fact. (Seriously, when a question is so badly posed we shouldn't assume anything about those who answer it one way or another).
Yep, and even if dinosaurs didn't exist alongside early humans, it is possible to make it so that they did by praying for it to happen. And even if there were a law of nature that renders it impossible... well you get the picture. Everything is possible to make happen merely by wishing it to be "poofed". This is one of the basic tenets of the belief systems of about, oh, six billion people or so.
Posted by: 386sx | August 1, 2007 8:12 PM
My father is a famous engineer. But he does not understand the subtlety of evolution one bit. He once asked me, "But how do the animals KNOW how to change?" Engineers often think like glorified auto-mechanics, with everything in its place, everything with a function, neatly categorized and designed. Engineering almost guarantees creationist thinking, with all do respect to the enlightened engineers out there.
Posted by: MarcusA | August 1, 2007 8:24 PM
Damn...how ironic that I have no god to save me from the religious idiots. Maybe I would be happier if I were a fundie nut too.
Posted by: ShadesOfGrey | August 1, 2007 8:44 PM
The general public has such a warped idea of Engineers, it is no wonder that Engineers are a bit warped too. I have friends who think I wear a white lab coat and work in a lab - possibly with chemicals, rubber gloves and a wild-haired inventor type. (I design electronic hardware via CAD in my cube. We do have a lab, but no lab coats.)
Heh. I tell people I'm a librarian, they immediately think I shelve books and shush people. Nope - I sit at a computer and catalogue/index/classify, when I'm not in meetings, training, or doing a myriad other things.
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | August 1, 2007 8:49 PM
Of course their poll has a lower percentage of creationists than the general population. Parade requires you to read.
Posted by: Timothy | August 1, 2007 8:59 PM
HA!
I'm a computer scientist.... but people hear computer and want me to fix their windows problem....
I'm also a consultant - so people assume I'm an ass with opinions and no actual skills/knowledge.
I'm also in senior management - so people think i spend all day in meetings simply telling juniors what to do and drinking coffee... (OK the last one is pretty close to the truth)
the point is - no one label defines everything we are... but it is sufficient to define some aspect of what we are.
And people who *read* parade (as opposed to simply using it as eye-candy-words-in-a-line-when-it-gets-in-my-line-of-sight) are simply delusional whack jobs!
Posted by: tony | August 1, 2007 9:07 PM
MarcusA,
You'd think that engineers would have enough exposure to probability and statistics to have more than a layman's insight into how evolution works. Lots of stuff "just happens" according to stochastic patterns, from crystal structure in metals to shot noise in a resistor, with useful (or at least understandable) aggregate behavior. But, yeah, compartmentalization is such a strong habit of mind for many engineers that such results are waved away with the notion that, to a sufficiently intelligent and knowledgeable engineer, probability doesn't exist -- there is a reason, a cause, for everything. The very mechanism of evolution is anathema, with its reliance on accidental events and selection.
Posted by: idlemind | August 1, 2007 9:16 PM
Henry Morris hydraulics.
http://thestubborncurmudgeon.blogspot.com
Posted by: John Danley | August 1, 2007 9:30 PM
I found the poll question very misleading... dinosoars could have existed alongside early humans. It's just that all the evidence suggests that they didn't.
Posted by: Brain Hertz | August 1, 2007 9:48 PM
damn... must use preview...
^oar^aur
Posted by: Brain Hertz | August 1, 2007 9:49 PM
Creationist: "I do believe in Noah, I do, I do. I do believe in Noah, I do, I do!" repeat ad nauseam.
Posted by: ChrisKG | August 1, 2007 9:51 PM
This engineer thing really doesn't surprise me. When I was college in the early 70s, everyone was required to take two years of English (1 of comp and 1 of lit) and several humanities courses, regardless of major. This, however, did not apply to engineering students - they were required to have only 1 yr of English and as far as I can remember pretty much zilch for the liberal arts. As a technical writer, I can attest to the fact that a great many of them haven't a clue to the mechanics of writing a simple sentence. It's as if a lot of them are savants.
Posted by: RobertK | August 1, 2007 9:55 PM
Of course humans coexisted with dinosaurs - we currently are.
Except now they're called birds.
Posted by: fupDuck | August 1, 2007 9:55 PM
I think the engineer thing is much more than just being biology laymen. It's been stated around here before, but it really seems more linked to authoritarianism. Analogy alert! Take two 2nd graders, both very bright, love math and science. One is from a very religious family (therefore authoritarian in thinking), one is from a more secular family. Which will end up an engineer, which a scientist? And engineering training just cements the authoritarian thinking, because it is applications of science. Science (the part you use, and engineers don't use evolution much) becomes the authority.
And try saying you're a linguist. People start saying "Oh! I better watch my grammar!" Using my job title doesn't help much (Director of Categorization).
Posted by: MyaR | August 1, 2007 10:00 PM
Gah, started to write an analogy, then changed to something more direct. Didn't remove my analogy alert.
Hmph. Had to wait to post my correction of myself.
Posted by: MyaR | August 1, 2007 10:01 PM
I'm surprised no one commented on this great line:
I understand fossils being that old ... but do you really think bones could last that long?
So 65-MYO fossils are cool. But no bones. Nope.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield | August 1, 2007 10:01 PM
Another thing that's scary is that about every other post that mentions scripture gets it really, really wrong. The damnable fools don't know what it is they think they're defending.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | August 1, 2007 10:08 PM
I live in Texas... I'm an Engineer... and I'm Atheist... apparently I'm the only one of those... Atheist Texas Engineer. It's lonely sometimes...
Posted by: sil-chan | August 1, 2007 10:14 PM
P.Z., y'know, Parade used to have Carl Sagan on retainer as "chief science correspondent" or "staff astronomer," or something like that.
Have your agent call and pitch putting you on the masthead, and have you do a column a couple times a year.
No agent? Call 'em.
I'm serious, dammit. Call them. With luck, they'll agree, and they will stop being stupid for a long time. The worst that could happen: They'd fail to hire you.
Call 'em.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | August 1, 2007 10:14 PM
haha
Do you believe dinosaurs could have existed alongside early humans?
ANSWERS % OF VOTE
Yes 33%
No 67%
Results based on a total of 6666 responses
6666 responses , awesome....
Posted by: ackbarr | August 1, 2007 10:15 PM
Stop with the engineer bashing, people. Yes, some of us don't use the scientific method. Yes, some of us are morons about biology. That does not mean you get to tar all of us with your brush.
I, for one, am a researcher studying circuit design. Design does not require me to use the scientific method on a normal basis, but it does come up. Some of my colleagues do research on testing, which can and often does require the scientific method.
Your average B.S. in engineering doesn't get much background in bio. But then, your average B.S. in bio doesn't get much exposure to physics. We all have our weak spots, and it's up to the knowledgeable ones among us to help fix that.
Posted by: JP | August 1, 2007 10:17 PM
if i believe the days are 24 hours long(which i acutally think they are just a bit shorter than that, hence leap year), then that means i must accept the bible as truth....
wait, WHAT?
Posted by: jenni | August 1, 2007 10:18 PM
Okay, broken record here (since I've said this before), but as someone who used to design complex things (steam turbines) all day, the process bore much more resemblance to evolution than to creationism (trial and error, lucky accidents, incremental changes to previous designs, survival in a competitive marketplace). We did some of our "natural selection" on models and prototypes, but a lot happened "in the field" also. I remember a couple of us joking once about how the Great Designer in the Sky had screwed up by producing sickle-cell anemia as part of his fix for the malaria bug - similar things often happened with our own first round of fixes to turbine problems.
I have met some engineers who might not be able to grasp the concept of evolution, but they didn't work on complex design problems - or not for long. Some were basically mechanics, who wound up in factory support or field service, which is useful work but relies more on mechanical intuition than modeling ability.
Posted by: JimV | August 1, 2007 10:19 PM
OK, I'm going to be a bit of a dick and ask the scientists here in the comments if they have any actual evidence that a majority, or even a substantial minority, of engineers are creationists. Is it possible that we take special notice when self-proclaimed engineers espouse creationist nonsense because we expect them to know better?
If there are surveys that show the percentage of creationist engineers, I'd like to see it. I'm sure I'd be disappointed in the figure, but I'm holding out hope that the number would be distinctly less than the general population.
Posted by: Dr. Drang | August 1, 2007 10:26 PM
Yes we expect engineers to know better. We also expect doctors, dentists, biologists, geneticists, mathematicians, computer scientists, college and high school graduates to know better. Unfortuantely some of these are more frequently vocal about their abiltiy to ignore good science and their supposed good education.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 1, 2007 10:35 PM
I really wonder how this copper-jacketed 9mm slug would taste.
Posted by: Jeb, FCD | August 1, 2007 10:36 PM
I just posted this on the other site...
I think the real question is "how do we know what to believe?" If I accept virgins births, talking donkeys, living in whales, global floods, demon possessions, money in fish, existence of unicorns, the firmament, a flat Earth or any other claim made in the Bible then by what basis do we have to reject astrology, faith healings, tarot cards, ghosts, leprechauns, Big Foot, alien abduction and so on? Where do we separate allegory, metaphor, allusion, and fiction from fact? The story of Noah is a myth, like the flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh before it. Science has bore this out repeatedly. Science is the method by which we can answer the legitimacy of the existence or non-existence of Noah, the Flood, and the dating of dinosaurs and early plant and animal life on the planet.
When a Creationist claims that the Earth is only 4,000 to 6,000 years old, they are using the "who begat who" dating method. Is that scientific? We deserve better than to age our planet and by extension the solar system and the universe on the mating habits of ancient peoples.
Posted by: ChrisKG | August 1, 2007 10:38 PM
Having just scored 45 on the Asperger's Test, I guess I'm now allowed to rant at these morons:
Posted by: Woof | August 1, 2007 10:55 PM
Different strokes, JP. I, for one, like to bash creationist mathematicians precisely because I expect better from those doing what I aspire to do. Did somebody say Granville Sewell? No? Well, check out the foolishness anyway, if you haven't yet.
Particularly amusing is his claim that producing encyclopedias and computers violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. As he says, that "point is very simple, but also seems to be appreciated only by more mathematically oriented people" who don't understand science and would rather imply that the foundations of thermodynamics have been thoroughly falsified by routine acts than actually learn the science.
(In all honesty, I'm engaging in a slight quote-mine here, as I'm focusing on what I find most ridiculous in his argument rather than the overall thrust. As far as I can tell, though, that part is just as utterly wrong as I think it is and the whole thing betrays a failure to comprehend thermodynamics.)
Sure, university instructors principally pass on ideas from narrowly defined specialties, but it would be nice if they might inspire students to learn and to think. Universities and academics love to pay lip service to critical thinking, whether they do much about it or not. I don't mind pointing out that Sewell sets an embarrassing example.
Posted by: wrg | August 1, 2007 11:02 PM
I've mentioned before, on this blog & elsewhere, that I dropped out of university (college)...
I was a very aspiring computer scientist.... but I was a shit-poor scholar. I could do everything 'in class' and do *anything* when I had access to reference books, and my projects were huge and immensely challenging... butg I could never fully master subjects requiring mere scholarship (number theory - why so many axioms; calculus - great & works really well operationally, but why do I need to KNOW the fucking standrd integrals!!!! they're in a book, already)
My university had no credits for class work, and 100% credits for competitive exams - i.e. tuned for scholars.
I dropped out because I couldn't handle delivering successful seminars to my 'seniors' in 'Data structures & algorithms' while simultaneously failing calculus!
Posted by: tony | August 1, 2007 11:14 PM
sorry - you might be interested in a *point* for the above...
*just because someone has a degree doesn't mean (s)he can think*
and
*just because someone doesn't have a degree doesn't mean (s)he can't think*
Posted by: tony | August 1, 2007 11:16 PM
tony,
abso-bloody-lutely to your #71
Posted by: cyan | August 1, 2007 11:38 PM
There is a real scandal being covered up in the creo community.
We know now that at least 99% of all terrestrial life is extinct, dinosaurs, synapsids, giant dragonflies and millipedes, permian reptiles, pleistocene mammals, SA terror birds, etc..
According to them, all these animals were on the Big Boat. They got off the boat. Then they died out. All 4,000 years ago. A 99% failure rate is a disaster in anyone's book.
There is a big oooppppsy here. We miss our dinosaurs! I blame it on poor Iraqi class post deluge planning. Somebody dropped the ball big time.
This has been covered up for 4,000 years. What happened and when did they know it?
Posted by: raven | August 1, 2007 11:50 PM
Raven - you're absolutely right.
It's time we all stood up to these immoral extinctionary(?) people and told it like it is....
I bet these are the same people responsible for global warming, and causing the death of all these current species!
IT'S STILL HAPPENING!
Posted by: tony | August 1, 2007 11:56 PM
@fupDuck (#53):
Except now they're called birds.
yeah, this annoys me too. what annoys me even more is that these idiots are right for the wrong reasons. and the smart people are standing there going "hahah look at how dumb these people are" when they're actually wrong themselves on a technicality.
birds are dinosaurs.
birds are not extinct.
ergo, dinosaurs are not extinct.
Posted by: arachnophilia | August 1, 2007 11:57 PM
#57 I call bullshit. I get tired of this lame ass backhand about the fundie bible reading. There take is as good as your take they just refuse to bend a belief to reality and that makes them clueless.
Others who pretend to 'know' that the cave dwelling goatherder really meant this profound thing that was evolution 1000's of years before Darwin brought it together are simply seeing what you want to see.
Posted by: Uber | August 1, 2007 11:58 PM
wrg:
There's nothing wrong with bashing the creationists in engineering. They're an example of that piss-poor teaching of critical thinking you mention. My point was simply to not overgeneralize about engineers.
I find that engineering instruction is pretty authoritarian, as mentioned above. However, the professors aren't the authoritarians, it's the students who don't care about understanding the why behind the engineering. Most profs know and are happy to explain the science behind engineering. Most students just take equations on faith.
Also, professors talk a great deal about theory and design, but not as much about debugging designs. Debugging, or in its more general form, engineering forensics, is heavily rooted in the scientific method and critical thinking. Why did ____ break? What are the possible culprits? How can I determine the root cause?
Too often students are left on their own when attempting to debug their work. Even if the tools of debugging are taught, rarely do students learn how to think about it. This needs to be remedied.
Posted by: JP | August 2, 2007 12:16 AM
In response to #75:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't dinosaurs evolve into birds. By our definition of "bird", dinosaurs are not included.
I mean, if we are going to say that when species A evolves into species B, that species B is still species A, we are effectively saying Humans are single-celled organisms, aren't we?
Sorry if I'm incorrect, I've only had a single semester of biology and I've forgotten all the technical terms that I should be using here, but its hard to keep that stuff in your head if you aren't using it daily.
Posted by: DFX | August 2, 2007 1:16 AM
Calladus:
"I've met one MSEE who believed in Bigfoot, conspiracy theories, and everything UFO."
Was that Joe Thor, perchance?
See ya tomorrow night, BTW.
Scott
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | August 2, 2007 1:19 AM
#64...I'm not sure anyone is saying that engineers are hugely likely to be creationists. As a subset of scientists, though, they're much more likely to be creationists. What's more, there are certainly far more engineers than biochemists or paleontologists. Thus when Hovind or Ham needs a "scientist", it's no surprise to see an engineer or mathematician get trotted out.
Posted by: ngong | August 2, 2007 1:26 AM
As a footnote to my comment of authoritarian engineers being created in religious families, I speak somewhat from personal experience. I have three brothers who are engineers, one of them a creationist. The other two figured it out. That's about the same rate my engineer friends and I figured in college. I only knew one or two godly linguists, though, but that could just be because the atheist ones were a lot more fun.
Posted by: MyaR | August 2, 2007 1:27 AM
#78,
They're both, birds and dinosaurs. Just as we are humans, and apes. A life form doesn't stop being one just because it evolved into another. Which means, according to discoveries recently made regarding a certain cnidarian worm, that you are a slime mold.
#79,
Just because somebody believes in creationism and soil depletion doesn't mean he's wrong about soil depletion.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 2, 2007 1:36 AM
PARADE is that syndicated Sunday supplement whose front-page story can usually be summed up thusly: "Celebrity du jour confesses: 'I was a cokehead in a downward spiral until I was redeemed by reproducing my DNA and then life became a joyous miracle"... that's the level we're dealing with here.
As for engineers as creationists: I think that's a case of projection.
Perhaps next, PARADE can delve more into the subject of artistry and ignorant opinions by asking its readers whether they believe Allah turned this woman into a beast.
(Actually, I was just looking for an opportunity to post something about Patricia Piccinin here...)
Posted by: Ann Homily | August 2, 2007 1:47 AM
I think another explanation may be overlooked, i.e., people are unlikely to falsely represent themselves as a particular scientist (biologist, chemist, et al), as simple questions can out them, but the blanket term "engineer" is suitibly vague to hide their chicanery.
I suspect that several of the self-described engineers in these, and other related surveys, are liars. I also do not find it to be a great stretch to imagine that they have been informed that, if misrepresenting credentials, claiming to be an engineer is easier to fudge.
The ID crowd is a den of dishonest worms (my apologies to worms and ordinary liars) who have demonstrated repeatedly that truth has no place in their disturbed little crania.
Posted by: autumn | August 2, 2007 2:11