AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: Freelurker

form_srcid: Freelurker

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.211.27.61

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Freelurker

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Freelurker%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2006/10/15 15:55:45, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote
stevestory wrote:
It was a Ph.D in economics. His thesis was entitled "Inefficient Markets in Religious Apologetics: Identifying New Profit Opportunities in Selling Jargon to Morons"

That was very, very, funny.

I haven’t commented on this thread before. By way of introduction, I'm an Engineer and a member of NCSE.

Have commented occasionally on PT, TT and UD, but I don't usually have anything to contribute unless it relates to engineering or modeling.

On the topic of jargon, my one experience at UD was back in March and was typical; I stopped posting there after a polite and on-topic comment of mine was suppressed by DT. I was commenting on the differences between the ID useage of the term "design" and the engineering useage of that term.

I've heard scientists complain that ID proponents misuse science terms. Well, in my not-so-humble opinion, their uses of "design" and of "specification" often don't match engineering useage. (But this is not misuse except when they are claiming that being Engineers gives them authority on the topic of "design.")

Date: 2006/10/15 16:47:12, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote
Freelurker, do you have any insight into why many IDers are engineers?

I think that Lenny got it right in this post to PT:

 
Quote
Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 17, 2006 08:49 AM (e)

Why do so many engineers fall all gaga over ID “theory”? Because, I think, each of us tends to picture god in our own image. If cows had a god, it’d be a Super Cow. If ayatollahs (or ayatollah-wanna-be’s, like the fundies) have a god, it’s a Super Ayatollah. And if design engineers have a god, it’s a Super Design Engineer.


Plus, most of us enginners (including myself) simply have a lot of exposure to invented order and not much (yet) to emergent order.

Date: 2006/10/15 20:04:55, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote
Freelurker, do you have any insight into why many IDers are engineers?

For me, thinking like an engineer leads me to be critical of the ID position. ID doesn't have any distinctive models. I can't imagine doing engineering without models: domain models, design models, process models. Where I work, we're always asking/deciding "What does what to what?" ID foreswears this question.

Also, engineers, in general, work under an imperative to do work that produces practical, useful results. I speculate that this imperative is, in general, even stronger in engineering work than it is in scientific work. The ID folks are currently celebrating decades of history while still not offering any models at all, let alone superior models.

Date: 2006/10/29 16:08:56, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote
17. DaveScot // Oct 29th 2006 at 8:37 am

ScaryFacts

Snowflakes don’t look designed. They are not assemblages of interdependent parts that perform a function. Machines are designed. Snowflakes are merely repetitive crystal patterns. They look pleasing, not designed. Anyone who thinks a snowflake looks designed has no understanding of engineering or design.

Comment by DaveScot — October 29, 2006 @ 8:37 am

Again Dave is implying that his gut feel is better than someone else’s because he is an engineer.

But a task of determining whether a non-man-made object was or was not intentionally designed is not an engineering activity. When we engineers are inventing, there is no question as to the existence of intent; our own intent is obviously in play. When we are reverse-engineering a human-made object or system there is likewise no question of the existence of intent; the original human designers obviously also had intents (the original intents are often not completely known, but that's not the point.)

It is true that we engineers see a lot of intentionally constructed structures and processes, but if we take on the task of “detecting design” (detecting intentionality) in nature then our experience is as likely to give us bias as it is to give us insight.

Date: 2006/11/17 19:28:48, Link
Author: Freelurker
From later in that same thread:
Quote
Cordova's post didn't go away; the link was just in error. Try the following:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1781

(without the "6" at the end).

Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 16, 2006 07:34 PM

Date: 2006/11/29 00:33:55, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote

So when it comes to recognizing design an engineer seems to be the expert with the most “weight”, right? As an engineer and patent maven in the computer and factory automation fields it is my professional opinion that the molecular machinery resident in every living cell is the product of intelligent agency. It’s inconceivable the source could be anything else. -ds

Dave's professional engineering experience does not give him experience with the question at hand. Engineers don't "detect design" in the way the phrase is meant by IDers.

In actual engineering work, there is never an issue of whether or not an intelligent agency was involved in producing a product. In ID, the involvement of an intelligent agency is the entire issue.

Anyone can make analogies between (1) the processes and structures we see in nature and (2) the processes and structures invented by humans. But we are still left with the question of whether the natural things required an intelligent agency.

It's as if he's saying that Paley's argument would have been stronger if Paley had been an expert watch designer.

Date: 2006/11/29 19:15:43, Link
Author: Freelurker
I don't understand why we had all of that discussion of the quality of DaveScot's engineering background. If a biologist were to expound on the engineering feats of von Daniken's ancient astronauts, I wouldn't be wondering if that person was really a biologist.

Date: 2006/12/22 15:41:43, Link
Author: Freelurker
I grew up in Detroit, Michigan. Currently I live in Virginia. Happy holidays to everyone! :)

Date: 2007/01/09 17:17:37, Link
Author: Freelurker
This was my last comment to UD, which was suppressed:
 
Quote
Salvador wrote:  
Quote
Depends on how one frames the poll question. If you asked, “dear engineer, we are conducting a poll…
Do you think the engineering profession can survive without the intelligence of engineers?
Can mindless unpaid processes do the job better than intelligent engineers?”
I expect you’ll probably get mean looks for asking such a stupid question.…

Yes, you will get mean looks. I recommend you don’t use your stupid questions.

Sal tried to strawman me and I turned it back on him. And just as politely. So someone decided to protect Sal.

Date: 2007/01/17 21:22:32, Link
Author: Freelurker
Hey, show some respect for Kazmer Ujvarosy. He has published a book. And he doesn't even brag about it. The UFO connections of Jesus Christ

EDIT - Full citation: The ufo connections of Jesus Christ / Kazmer Ujvarosy. - New York : Vantage Press, 1977. - 121 s. Referenced here: http://www.skepticreport.com/ufo/ufo-u.htm

EDIT - Find an extract here: http://tinyurl.com/yrg83p

Date: 2007/03/04 20:50:54, Link
Author: Freelurker
Scott,

I’ll give you credit for one thing; you state the IDist position more accurately/honestly than the DI does. Attempting to sound scientific, the DI states their claim as:

“…certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause …”

But, as has already been said in other comments here, IDists show no interest in actually explaining anything. They eschew the need for a “mechanistic” model or story. As you appear to recognize, their position, in practice, is different from what they state. I would state their position as:

“ .. certain features of the universe and of living things justify belief in the existence of an intelligent cause …”

And that’s not too different from your “hypothesis.”

Date: 2007/03/04 21:58:31, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote
With any of these theories the where, what, why is never answered. Where did the strings of energy come from? Why do they exist? What caused the existence?

Whenever we go to the frontiers of scientific knowledge, we find a lot of things we don't understand. This has always been true and always will be. (You can quote me on that.)

You may find, as I do, that it sometimes takes courage to say "I don't know."

Everybody has a right to speculate what lies beyond the current frontier. But if anyone wants their speculations to be considered scientific knowledge, they have to show that their new idea fits objectively known data and enables testable predictions.

Science does not claim to have all of the answers. Faith is useful to many people. Just don't call it science.

Cheers.

Date: 2007/03/05 11:22:56, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote
I have put ID into the form of a scientific hypothesis and I will challenge IDists to defend their hypothesis.
They won't own up to your statement of their position. When pressed, they will retreat to their minimal position, which is "All we are doing is detecting design."

Date: 2007/03/05 19:45:41, Link
Author: Freelurker
Scott,

Please take some friendly advice; don’t invest too much of your ego in the idea that you have formulated a new logical gotcha that is going to have significant impact on the ID movement.

The situation is just not that simple, as Lenny has described in his previous comments.

Date: 2007/03/05 20:24:49, Link
Author: Freelurker
Whenever the word "new" appears in a comment it has the color red.
Started happening a day or so ago.

Test: new (without quotes)

EDIT: Well, I guess it's not every time ... I'll try to pin down the circumstances.

EDIT2: Among other places it happens here:
Antievolution.org Discussion Board > All About Antievolution > Intelligent Design > Scientific Status of Intelligent Design

Date: 2007/03/14 22:34:44, Link
Author: Freelurker
Richardthughes:  
Quote
Vernor vinge, father of the singularity singularity, cites engineers as the reason we might not make more reductionist progress into finding 'the software for the soul"

http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=memelist.html?m=1%23696

That's right!
[throws fruit at engineers] get some biologists in there with the neural networks and whatnots. These engineers are an anachronism from the industrial age that have not evolved to be competitive in the new information age environment!

*wink*


I guess you're right; we engineers are just too used to using a materialist perspective in our work. We'll leave it to the biologists to go looking for souls. :D

[BTW, Thanks for the link!]

Date: 2007/04/04 20:40:12, Link
Author: Freelurker
Rats … my favorite topic comes up on one of the few days I’m not watching the blogs. My comment is way near the bottom of that thread.  My key point there:
   
Quote
Non-IDist engineers should challenge IDist/creationist engineers on their hypocrisy. (That's what I do.)

I actively challenge the IDists regarding the relationships between ID and Engineering. Here's a recent example at UD:

http://tinyurl.com/32appj

(My comments start about a third of the way down and then pick up again at the end.)

I wish more engineers would do this, but I understand why they don’t. The question “Why are so many engineers involved in ID/Creationism?’ is the flip side of the question “Why are so few engineers actively opposing ID/Creationism?” A simple answer to that question is “Engineering is not specifically targeted in the Wedge Document.”

Date: 2007/04/18 21:32:18, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote (J-Dog @ April 16 2007,22:01)
I came for the learning, stayed for the fun!

Me too. I’ve always had a broad range of interests, and this whole ID/Creationism issue touches many of them: politics, religion, science, math, history, and, sometimes, engineering. It’s great fun to hear from learned people from all of these fields with all of their colorful personalities.

As an engineer, I have found that the best way I can contribute to the debate is by countering the misrepresentations the ID/C folks make about the relevance of engineering to ID. Comparisons between engineering and ID actually undermine the ID position.

Engineers and scientists are natural (pun intended) allies in this debate. My appreciation of this began when I read the excellent article  “A Philosophical Premise of 'Naturalism'?” by Mark Isaak.

Date: 2007/05/29 20:26:00, Link
Author: Freelurker
Sal recently provided another episode of posturing and distortion regarding engineering, science, and ID.

I provided several comments, six of which made it through moderation. Here are the two that did not:
   
Quote
bFast wrote: “It turns out that when we examine biological systems, we must envision them to be like the stuff that we humans intelligently design.”

You lost me there. Do you mean we must not envision them to be unlike the stuff we humans design? I can envision lots of ways a flagellum is not like anything we have ever designed. It’s really marvelous.

By the way, the letter we’ve been talking about says that physiologists model biological systems in a manner that engineers use to model other systems (specifically, as black boxes with input-output relations.) Nowhere does he say that the resulting biological models must be like the models of systems built by engineers.

   
Quote
StuHarris and bFast,

I’m having trouble with this idea that engineering is non-materialistic. (In fact, I find it absurd.) Could you give an example of engineering work where a non-materialistic approach was used? An example from your own work would be ideal.

I gather that the moderator did not want me to pursue the ideas of StuHarris and bFast. He accurately assessed that it would not have gone well for them at all.

And I so wanted to hear about non-materialistic engineering …   ;)

Date: 2007/06/16 23:54:32, Link
Author: Freelurker
Reminds me of this attempt at biting satire:

[The Mutations performing] "Overwhelming Evidence"

The weird part is that they thought it was somehow really clever.

Date: 2007/06/30 00:42:14, Link
Author: Freelurker
Kristine wrote:  
Quote
… Han Salvo …

Very funny. I was trying to think of something along those lines, but Kristine nailed it!

And I needed a laugh; the discussions at UD lately have been more pathetic than they have been entertaining. For some reason, I’m particularly revolted by the thought that I have spent even a second of my life listening to Sal indulging in his Star Wars fantasies.

It could be that I’m just burned out on this stuff. I haven’t been commenting as often as many of you do, but I have been following the ID issue online and in books very intensely for over a year and a half, particularly regarding the relationships between engineering and ID. (Realistic comparisons undermine the ID position.)

I’m going to spend less time on this … at least for a while … really …

[Note to Mister DNA: Greetings and welcome to a fellow spud – Duty Now for the Future!]

Date: 2007/07/09 21:54:25, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 09 2007,01:29)
More EF on the Sci Phi Show:

http://thesciphishow.com/forums/index.php?topic=114.msg2026#msg2026


Worth a gander.

See Sal extol previously unknown capabilities of the EF in this UD thread: MIT's Department of Biological Engineering

From my latest comment there:
   
Quote
You claimed that the EF could be used to identify designs such as backup systems. Please show how the EF, a tool that is intended to do nothing more than attribute things to law, chance, or design, can do this.

You don’t have to go through the steps of the EF; just start from the end of the EF process, where you have already determined whether or not there was intelligent causation. Then take us to where you have identified a backup system.

From here, it looks like you are just equivocating on the word “design.”

Date: 2007/07/10 18:20:01, Link
Author: Freelurker
Considering the steady stream of high quality fun-poking and science each of you regulars produce here, you are either superhuman or you devote incredible amounts of time to this. (Except for Lenny; he figured it all out long ago, so he can just say the same things over and over again.)

I thank you all.

(No, I couldn’t stay away.)

Date: 2007/07/12 10:40:58, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote (hooligans @ July 12 2007,11:11)
Seriously, does anyone else see the striking, and I mean striking resemblance Dembski and his minions have with a group of little kids?



Edited July 12,12:10: Struck it all out; it didn't say what I mean. Sorry.

Date: 2007/08/23 00:35:57, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 22 2007,22:51)
comments are up on his blog...
Lots of science questions from scientists and a few "right-ons" from, erm, engineers?

No, the "right-ons" are from creationists.

Date: 2007/08/23 01:28:12, Link
Author: Freelurker
Richardthughes,

As I've said here before, engineers and scientists are natural allies in this dispute. When the IDist engineers talk about engineering they misrepresent it as much as they misrepresent science. I have pointed this out over at UD several times, with some limited success.

You don't hear more from the mainstream engineers simply because the IDists aren't calling for reforms of engineering. (They conveniently ignore the fact that engineering is at least as materialistic as science is.)

Oh, and F*** you. :angry:

Date: 2007/12/16 20:52:17, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 16 2007,11:39)
Engineer for ID gets slapped down:

http://www.topix.net/forum/source/indianapolis-star/TIK4O9DGLPMH5B35C

From one of the excellent comments there:
 
Quote

Isn't a "field engineer for NCR" a cash register repair man?

Date: 2007/12/17 18:44:02, Link
Author: Freelurker
I need some quick help. I'm trying to find a document I saw online a couple of years ago. Can't find it now (later I started saving this stuff.)

It was written by Dembski about the time the Polanyi center was being considered/set up. As I recall, he was justifying it to the leaders of Baylor (or somebody).

As I recall, in it there is a part where he says something to the effect that ultimately the purpose of science is to describe the natural world.

Thanks.

Date: 2007/12/17 20:41:58, Link
Author: Freelurker
I made a comment over three hours ago over here:
Why Mathematicians, Computer Scientists, and Engineers Tend to be More Skeptical of Darwinian Claims

But the comment is "still in moderation," so I'll post it here just in case:
 
Quote
Freelurker
12/17/2007
6:33 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Gil wrote: “…we must demonstrate that our stuff can actually work in the real world, or at least that it has a reasonable prospect of working in the real world. ”

That’s right, we have to provide mechanistic descriptions. We produce models.

Tell us, what is the ID model of the history of life? Oh, that’s right you don’t have one; IDists excuse themselves from that.

That’s why great majority of Mathematicians, Computer Scientists, and Engineers find ID to be useless. (On what basis can I speak on behalf of these groups? It’s the same basis you have.)

BTW, for any of you who don't know, I am an engineer myself.

Date: 2007/12/19 03:26:36, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote (Freelurker @ Dec. 17 2007,21:41)
I made a comment over three hours ago over here:
Why Mathematicians, Computer Scientists, and Engineers Tend to be More Skeptical of Darwinian Claims

But the comment is "still in moderation," so I'll post it here just in case:
               
Quote
Freelurker
12/17/2007
6:33 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Gil wrote: “…we must demonstrate that our stuff can actually work in the real world, or at least that it has a reasonable prospect of working in the real world. ”

That’s right, we have to provide mechanistic descriptions. We produce models.

Tell us, what is the ID model of the history of life? Oh, that’s right you don’t have one; IDists excuse themselves from that.

That’s why great majority of Mathematicians, Computer Scientists, and Engineers find ID to be useless. (On what basis can I speak on behalf of these groups? It’s the same basis you have.)

BTW, for any of you who don't know, I am an engineer myself.

           
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 17 2007,21:53)
Oh that ain't never seein' the light of day over at the Tard Factory.  Good call to post it here.


(Indeed, my comment did not appear at UD, and no, I'm not really surprised.)

Thanks to all of you who chimed in here on this. I agree with all of your comments, to various degrees.

I would like to take this chance to give my opinion that ID critics, in general, are missing opportunities in the way they handle IDist engineers (as well as the IDist engineer wannabes and the IDist engineers-in-name-only.)

It’s true that an engineering career does not typically include much study of biology or of philosophy. But it does call for styles of thinking that are consistent with science and are inconsistent with ID. Comparisons between science and engineering work against the ID position. We should call on them to think more like engineers when they study the history of life or the history of the cosmos. That’s the approach that I have taken in my various comments over at UD. (With only a small effect, of course.)  

The first major way to do this is to point out that engineers take a materialist approach in their work just as scientists do (and for the same reasons.) IDist engineers don't have any problem spending their work days without seriously considering if a non-material intelligent agent is affecting, or will affect, the system on which they are working. But then they go home and get on their blogs and berate scientists for behaving the same way. Many of them make their hypocrisy even more apparent by taking a position that engineers are a type of scientist.

The second major way is to talk in terms of models and modeling. Point out that models are as fundamental to science as they are to engineering and that they are purposefully absent from ID. If they can't get this part about modeling (which most of them won't) then they can't be helped (and most of them can't.)

(Yes, I realize that these approaches can only affect the lurkers and the fence-sitters.)

There are other angles to this that I would like to talk about, but I need to finish this comment. The upshot is that our side is the one supported by comparisons between science, ID, and engineering.

Date: 2007/12/20 19:42:46, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote (Annyday @ Dec. 20 2007,16:38)
This is dated today, has anyone else seen it yet?

Intelligent Design at Baylor University: The Rise and Fall of Baylor University’s Michael Polanyi Center

Man. I have to read this all the way through. :D

That is the paper I was looking for when I made this comment here three days ago:      
Quote (Freelurker @ Dec. 17 2007,19:44)
I need some quick help. I'm trying to find a document I saw online a couple of years ago. Can't find it now (later I started saving this stuff.)

It was written by Dembski about the time the Polanyi center was being considered/set up. As I recall, he was justifying it to the leaders of Baylor (or somebody).

As I recall, in it there is a part where he says something to the effect that ultimately the purpose of science is to describe the natural world.


My thanks to everyone involved in helping me find it again!

[Waving to Dr. Dr. D ... ]

Date: 2007/12/26 15:07:14, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 24 2007,23:17)
 ... The way I think of it, we walk around with models of how the world works. The models have various objects in them, some of which we have direct evidence for, some we don't. My world includes basketballs, which I have direct evidence for, and japan, which I have indirect evidence for. I believe Fiji exists via some of this indirect evidence. (Were You There?!?!?!? No, I was never in Fiji. Shut up, HamTard. Grownups are talking.) It's part of my model for the world. So as far as my beliefs, which are aspects of my model of the world, you might call me a Fijiist. By contrast, I don't believe the Island of Gorgablax exists. I'm an agorgablaxist. It might, who knows, I haven't been everywhere in the world, but my model of the world doesn't include it. If you want me to make big life-changing decisions based on Gorgablax, I'm going to need to see some evidence that puts Gorgablax in my model. Do I know that Gorgablax doesn't exist? No. Am I going to act as if it does? No. Whether you call that agorgablaxism or Gorgablax agnosticism, the practical effect is the same. Gorgablax is not part of my model of the world.

Amen to that!
Thanks for this excellent exposition of the model-oriented way of looking at the world. Or is it a way of looking at the way people look at the world? Anyway, I agree with you, and your comment is a keeper.

Date: 2008/03/01 16:07:43, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 01 2008,15:18)
       
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Feb. 29 2008,17:30)

What do you know, Kevin Miller finally responded to what I wrote, only I had to hit him elsewhere before he babbled incoherently:          
Quote

I see Glen D. has been having a heyday with the following statement that I made on antievolution.org: "I see ID as a challenge not just to Darwinian evolution but to the very foundation of the scientific enterprise itself."
Somehow he takes that to mean I oppose the very foundation of science, which is patently untrue. What I meant to communicate is that one of the reasons I think ID is so controversial is that it doesn't just represent an evidential challenge to evolutionary biology, it also represents a philosophical challenge to our current definition of science. That's why I find this whole controversy so interesting, b/c it forces us to ask a number of fundamental questions about the nature of science that we wouldn't be asking if the IDers weren't around. I fail to see how this observation pits me against science in any way.  

The way I read it, his defense is that it's not him who's challenging science; it's those IDists who are doing it. He's just observing selling the controversy.

[Edit: "who's" rather than "that's"]

Date: 2008/03/22 15:13:36, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote (ERV @ Mar. 21 2008,21:01)
DI finally responds.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008....fa.html

No unexpected TARD.

I liked this part:
   
Quote
I have to say something else, personally. I have been sandbagged by one TV and documentary crew after another. So have Discovery-affiliated scientists.

Looks like Chapman recognizes that the movie producers of Expelled have been caught cold lying about the movie name. He's using the "everybody does it" defense.

Edit: "of Expelled"

Date: 2008/03/24 14:01:45, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote (dogdidit @ Mar. 24 2008,10:31)
 
I feel I should apologize for not using my name as my username when I came aboard.

No need to apologize; many of us here choose to remain anonymous.
     
Quote

... my thirty plus years of experience in radar and communications engineering told me to sit up and pay closer attention. Hey, that's MY stuff!

Greetings from a fellow engineer. There are a few of us who comment here and who are critical of ID.
     
Quote
I've grown weary from engineers' frequent resort to (bad) reasoning by analogy - the brain as a computer, DNA as software -

Please be careful with that broad brush! That behavior is typical of ID/Creationist engineers; analogies are all they have. Also watch for their continual equivocation on the word "design."
     
Quote
and I was suspicious that this was another example of a misleading metaphor. Or is this a term commonly encoutered in genetics or molecular biology?

I've been wondering about that too. The biologists here were more tolerant of the signal-and-noise analogy than I expected.

As to bFast, we are talking about a guy who agrees with a statement that engineering can be methodologically non-materialistic. Too bad the moderator at UD didn't let me follow up on that one.
See:
http://tinyurl.com/32nsh6

And now bFast has gone back to the cloister.

BTW, hats off to Zachriel, who set the best example of how bFast's comments should be handled. And a slight hat tip to bFast himself, who at least tried to do some modelling, not just philosophizing.

Edit: 1)fixed link, 2)more than a few

Date: 2008/07/02 02:57:11, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote (Wolfhound @ July 01 2008,16:17)
What the fuck is wrong with engineers?  Almost every time we get some flaming godbot spewing AIG crapola like it has some sort of value, it's an engineer.

I am also and engineer and I can assure you that you are not seeing a representative sample of engineers' views regarding science.

When you see that a high percentage of the creos are engineers and technicians, part of the explanation is that this is just the flip side of there being so few creo scientists. (Scientists, engineers, and technicians constitute a very high percentage of the people who care either way about the issues discussed here; they are the ones who like to have technical, or at least technical-sounding, explanations for things.)

When you see that there are so many more scientists than engineers arguing the pro-science side, it is simply because it is science that is under attack, not engineering. (To be consistent the creos should be going after engineering too, but that's another topic.)
           
Quote
Or do they call blocklayers "cement engineers" these days like garbage men are "sanitation engineers"?

Yes, that's part of it too.
         
Quote
To all of you engineers out there who are not asshats, you have my sympathy.

Rather than give us sympathy, just welcome us to the pro-science side of the argument. Engineers have a lot more in common with scientists than they do with IDists/creationists. Proper comparisons between Science, Engineering, and ID/Creationism actually undermine ID/Creationist positions.

Date: 2008/07/05 23:02:36, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote (stevestory @ July 05 2008,19:16)
Will I shock anyone by revealing that Jerry Pournelle was an engineer? I doubt it.

From the Wikipedia entry:
   
Quote
Jerry Eugene Pournelle (born August 7, 1933) is an American science fiction writer, essayist and journalist who contributed for many years to the computer magazine Byte and has since 1998 been maintaining his own website/blog.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....c_views

Also see his Bio

Notice that Pournelle does not call himself an engineer. That's understandable considering that he has never worked as an engineer. His writings for Byte were from a computer user perspective.

If you think that defense policy analysis and operations research are engineering then you are revealing your own ignorance and you are illustrating why people should not comment on areas they don't understand.

Yes, he has an engineering degree (M.S.) but he also has degrees in psychology (Ph.d), statistics (M.S.), and political science (Ph.d). If having the degree makes him an engineer then he must be a scientist, too; psychology is a science, right?

Save your venom for the creationists.

Date: 2008/07/06 07:53:00, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 06 2008,07:36)
   
Quote (Freelurker @ July 05 2008,23:02)
     
Quote (stevestory @ July 05 2008,19:16)
Will I shock anyone by revealing that Jerry Pournelle was an engineer? I doubt it.

If you think that defense policy analysis and operations research are engineering then you are revealing your own ignorance and you are illustrating why people should not comment on areas they don't understand.

Operations research is a staple of Industrial Engineering undergraduate programs.  At least it was when I was an IE student 20 years ago.

Operations Research is an analytical discipline that is distinct from engineering. It is indeed used in support of engineering but it is also used in support of management and policy analysis. As a group, operations researchers do not claim to be engineers. See: Operations Research: The Science of Better

Date: 2008/07/07 18:36:44, Link
Author: Freelurker
In previous comments here I have taken positions that (1) engineers and scientists are natural allies in the ID debate and (2) the pro-science side is the one that should be making comparisons between engineering, science, and ID.
Anyone who would like to see more support for these positions can read my comments here: The Missing Link in ... [Note: I'm a commenter there, not the poster.]

Date: 2008/08/10 00:24:40, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 09 2008,20:26)
   
[...]
In the Densey post at her blog, it gets funnier.

U.K. Sociologist Steve Fuller (University of Warwick), pictured below:



says:
       
Quote
"My fantasy ID textbook would actually treat biology as a branch of engineering – I.E. GOD'S ENGINEERING" (my emphasis)


Move along now -- nothing to see here. All science, all the time, yep. Move along.
[...]

She also quotes Fuller as saying:
     
Quote
I notice that Dembski and Wells have a book due out in the autumn that purports to explain ‘why intelligent design is necessary to explain the high-tech engineering inside the cell’.


It's not enough for them to be non-scientists pretending to be authorities on science; now they want to be non-engineers pretending to be authorities on engineering.

Equal opportunity tard! Why should you scientists have all the fun laughing at them? Now us engineers are going to have more chances.

Date: 2008/08/16 15:19:38, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 16 2008,03:20)
I think GCUGreyArea is arguing that wheels are irreducibly complex, so couldn't evolve.  Oh the irony.

Where are you seeing references to IC?

As far as I can see, he is only talking about the simple practicality of wheels as biological components. In other words, he's not addressing the feasibility of evolutionary paths to wheels, he's addressing the feasibility of wheels themselves. Even then, he specifically points out that he does not claim that they are impossible.

Date: 2008/08/17 10:48:22, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 17 2008,01:56)
     
Quote (Freelurker @ Aug. 16 2008,15:19)
     
Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 16 2008,03:20)
I think GCUGreyArea is arguing that wheels are irreducibly complex, so couldn't evolve.  Oh the irony.

Where are you seeing references to IC?

As far as I can see, he is only talking about the simple practicality of wheels as biological components. In other words, he's not addressing the feasibility of evolutionary paths to wheels, he's addressing the feasibility of wheels themselves. Even then, he specifically points out that he does not claim that they are impossible.

He doesn't formally say it, but he's talking about the sorts of difficulties in making a wheel, showing how hard it would be to get there.  Dave's responding by saying that wheels are less fit, the naughty evolutionist.

You're not going to win this argument, you know.  If you continue I'll demand you explain every step of the path of evolution of a wheel, including selection coefficients for all intermediates.  If you still want to go on, I'll claim a wheel would exhibit CSI.

You''ve missed my point. My point is that you've missed GCUGreyArea's point. He is not making a case that wheels could not have evolved. He is speculating on why they have not evolved.

See his previous comment @92:
     
Quote
The problem with wheels is not the complexity but how you grow them.

He's talking about development, not evolution. This is confirmed by his subsequent comment @96:
     
Quote
I’m speculating about methods of design and construction, not making claims about whether wheels can evolve or not.

Date: 2008/08/18 18:47:26, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 18 2008,09:59)
I'm liking this wheel thing:

From an engineering / intelligence perspective (DT is an expert on niether) it does seem an easy concept to understand and create - yet we see none in nature. What was the designer not thinking about?

This is a good IC / Design refutation because we see none yet we can all understand the utility of them.


 
Quote (Freelurker @ Dec. 19 2007,04:26)
... It’s true that an engineering career does not typically include much study of biology or of philosophy. But it does call for styles of thinking that are consistent with science and are inconsistent with ID. Comparisons between science and engineering work against the ID position. We should call on them to think more like engineers when they study the history of life or the history of the cosmos. ...

Date: 2008/09/26 19:38:28, Link
Author: Freelurker
I wish that GCUGreyArea would drop by AtBC. He presented the finest example I have ever seen of an Engineer debunking ID using an Engineering point-of-view.

Date: 2008/09/27 15:39:12, Link
Author: Freelurker
Welcome to you, indeed, GCUGreyArea.

stevestory is the mod who started the Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread and its successor, Uncommonly Dense Thread 2. He can be as funny and insightful as anyone. You'll appreciate this one (it's the one that got me to unlurk here):

mcc:  
"Maybe I knew this at one time, but I've forgotten. What was Dembski's PHD thesis again?"
 
stevestory:
"It was a Ph.D in economics. His thesis was entitled 'Inefficient Markets in Religious Apologetics: Identifying New Profit Opportunities in Selling Jargon to Morons'"

Date: 2008/12/12 19:22:46, Link
Author: Freelurker
I must be on double secret moderation. This comment of mine never showed up on UD's "Computers vs Darwinism" thread:
 
Quote

 
Quote
Remember the diameter, materials, meshing of parts, etc. in this Darwinian scenario have no idea what will be required later. - steve petermann


Well, like ribczynski said, IDists make this mistake all of the time. Under the evolutionary model, a flagellum is not what is required; the only thing required is survival and reproduction.

Steve spends several paragraphs telling us how difficult the special creation of a flagellum is. So what model does he advocate? Special creation!

Date: 2008/12/16 16:49:05, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 15 2008,17:33)
             
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 15 2008,13:08)
This seems to be the way of the new 'kinder, gentler' UD.  Under the old system DaveTard at least had the honesty to tell people when he was removing their posts or hitting the bannination button.  

These new slimy asshats now like to make selective posts (i.e. the embarrassing ones they can't address) just disappear with no mention.  Of course they no longer ban people at the new 'kinder, gentler' UD either.  They just put undesirable folks' posts in the category of 'awaiting  moderation for eternity'.


They want to maintain the illusion of openness at UD, which requires letting at least some critical comments through while quietly blocking the rest.  The problem is that most of the critical comments are well-aimed, and letting any of them through is enough to make the UDers look like idiots.

Slimy asshats, indeed. They let this comment of mine through:      
Quote
mynym ... while engineers who tend to be IDists and creationists generally have had something to do with the technology by which scientia/knowledge advances.

Do you claim that engineers tend to be IDists and creationists? If so, can you back that up?

And they let mynym reply:      
Quote
Do you claim that engineers tend to be IDists and creationists? If so, can you back that up?

I could point out that even Darwinists have noticed: “…the Salem Hypothesis states that creationists with formal educations are more likely to be engineers than they are to be other kinds of scientists. This hypothesis is supported primarily by anecdotal evidence: a good number of creationists who post to talk.origins claim to be engineers, and creationist organizations seem to be disproportionately populated by engineers. Why engineers would be more prone to creationism than other scientists is a good question.”

But is it so hard to figure out why that would be so given that they work with design problems in the real world every day instead of engaging in natural theology of a sort based on prissy or feminized Christianity?

E.g.: “Why would God make a panda’s thumb like this? It is settled then, Nature selected it and designed all the millions of organisms that exist.”

But they didn't let anyone see my rejoinder:      
Quote
mynym "the Salem Hypothesis states that creationists with formal educations are more likely to be engineers …”

But that’s not what you are claiming; you are claiming that engineers tend to be creationists.

Do you have any data to indicate that most engineers do not accept the theory of evolution? I expect that most engineers do accept it, but I don’t have any data on that either, right now.

The set of engineers who show up for ID/Creationism discussions is certainly not a representative sample of the general population of engineers. Although more than a few ID critics are engineers, most of the people who bother to confront ID/Creationism are scientists. The simple reason for this is that ID/Creationists are attacking science, not engineering (at least for now.)

    But is it so hard to figure out why that would be so given that they work with design problems in the real world every day …

OK, now you are describing why you think that engineers should support ID or Creationism. But, as IDists commonly do, you are equivocating between the meaning of “design” in ID and the meaning of “design” in engineering.

The core activity of ID is design detection, wherein some pattern is analyzed and then tagged as being attributable to chance, necessity, necessity, or design (purposefullness.) ID does not produce any patterns; it takes a pattern as an input and then categorizes the pattern. Engineering, of course, is all about producing patterns. In fact, in engineering a design is a pattern. To produce a design is to produce a pattern. During engineering design, we produce a pattern of an invented system, a pattern that describes a system’s parts and describes how those parts will work together. During engineering analysis, we examine some existing thing and then produce a pattern that serves as a model of that thing.

As you can see, IDists don’t do what engineers do, and engineers don’t do what IDists do.

I'm done commenting over there; the new regime is definitely worse than the previous one.

Date: 2009/02/17 17:33:22, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote
As for Intelligent Design, "It is not creationism," Dembski said. "It's engineering."

Dembski knows squat about engineering. Let's hope that Dembski takes his message to the engineering community; we could use more ID critics.

Engineering is comprised of engineering analysis and engineering design.

Engineering analysis models existing objects and processes (as does science.)

Engineering design invents objects and processes. The resulting engineering designs (i.e., patterns) are models of these potential objects and processes.

Engineering is all about models. ID, of course, eschews models.

 
Quote
ID entails research that seeks to discover evidence of design, or engineering, within nature.

Engineering, of course, does not entail that at all. Engineers doing engineering have no need to seek evidence of intelligent design.

Bottom line: IDists don't do what engineers do, and engineers don't do what IDists do.

Dembski has tried and failed to tie ID to Engineering before. Anyone interested should see this UD thread: MIT’s Department of Biological Engineering. [It features a special guest equivocation by Sal Cordova.]

Edit: this message his message

Date: 2009/02/23 22:40:00, Link
Author: Freelurker
Apparently, Dembski needed to be protected from this comment (it never appeared):
Quote
Freelurker, 02/23/2009, 6:25 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

William Demski @3
   
Quote
Yes, ID has a natural home in the engineering sciences. Engineering is about designing things so that they work.

And ID is not. Last I heard, ID is about detecting the complement of chance and regularity.

Engineers don’t do what IDists do, and IDists don’t do what engineers do.
   
Quote
Evolutionary biology is about imagining how things might work.

Yes, scientists and engineers are model-builders, not philosophers.

How is he going to find a home for ID in engineering, if he's going to hide from the engineers?

Date: 2009/03/02 06:21:50, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote (Laminar_ @ Mar. 02 2009,05:50)
 
[...]
Humans make internal combustion engines, digital computers, space rockets, wheels, light bulbs, electric motors.  Lots of the things that we make are things that are also arguably 'irreducibly complex', in other words they can't evolve - which is probably why we don't see them in nature!
[...]


(1) Light bulbs, etc., don't reproduce; they don't evolve in the same sense that biological systems evolve. That is at least one reason we don't see them in nature.
(2) It's the IDists who say that irreducibly complex biological structures can't evolve. See: CB200:Irreducible Complexity

Date: 2009/03/02 06:38:48, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 01 2009,16:21)
 
Quote
However, you might pinch a piece of code from an unrelated project to stop reinventing the wheel.

So ID would predict many exceptions to common descent ...


This is what happens when humans engineer living things, which  I think is the most convincing argument against ID. Why do the only known designers routinely violate common descent, and why does the Designer stick to the constraints imposed by common descent.

You make a very good point. It's a good counter to the analogies made by IDists.

Date: 2009/03/02 07:22:02, Link
Author: Freelurker
Laminar,
I don't doubt your motives. And I like to see engineering-based criticisms of ID. I just wasn't getting the points you were making.

Date: 2009/03/11 15:25:04, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2009,15:55)
I do hope the Dembski/Marks paper is published soon!

I think it's delayed while they hold private readings for church groups. You know, building up a "buzz" before the official release.

Date: 2009/03/14 12:44:29, Link
Author: Freelurker
tsig,
There are plenty of areas in which to disagree with Mike Gene, but I've never seen any indication that he is connected with the DI. In fact, he heartily agreed with the Dover decision.

Date: 2009/03/14 17:18:20, Link
Author: Freelurker
I see an important difference between someone who is apolitically "thinking telic thoughts" and someone who is trying to use the power of government to teach their sectarian beliefs to my kids.

Your mileage may vary ...

ETA: I'm not a fan of Mike Gene; I'm just trying to be fair.

Date: 2009/03/19 11:35:23, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 18 2009,15:57)
Some Id-ists have trouble understanding why abstractions like GA/EC are relevant - ie. but it ain't wet! An important point for these folks (and others) is that GA isn't a model of evolution, it _IS_ evolution.

This is true in one sense, but let's not lose the distinction between genetic optimization algorithms and simulations of biological evolution.

It seems to me that Dembski makes mischief in just this way. All this criticism of modelers "sneaking in" information just isn't relevant to simulation models. The entire model, every bit of it, came from the modeler. The real issue is the fidelity of the model; does it match reality sufficiently to justify any conclusions one makes based on the model.

Date: 2009/03/20 19:40:34, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 20 2009,20:17)
What does that even mean? "The man who lives up to his moniker?"

I take it that it refers to you repeating your question (when they couldn't answer it and wouldn't admit it.)

BTW, kudos on your tardbusting.

Date: 2009/03/21 20:50:23, Link
Author: Freelurker
Biped:  
Quote
Quite honestly, it’s an embarrassment to Darwin (and to science).

I sure hope we haven't embarrassed Darwin. I fear his wrath.

Date: 2009/04/09 07:54:35, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote
Atom: Proximity Neutral Search: Since choosing a reward function rich in active information, such as a simple Proximity Reward function, is unrealistic for biological purposes, we have a Proximity Neutral Search available.

Hmmm ... Is this another way of saying that targeted searches are unrealistic for biological purposes?

Date: 2009/04/11 18:10:20, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote (deadman_932 @ April 11 2009,16:02)
...
With the PhiX bacteriophage studies, Dimsky squanders a perfectly good opportunity to explore the ramifications of ID "theory" regarding such things as front-loading, mutation rates and compensatory mutation, constraints on "randomness" in mutation or some of Sanford's extravagant claims/ Muller's Ratchet, etc.
...

It's probably like the Simulation Wars thread; he's floating this to get comments that will help him with a book or paper that he's writing -- something he expects to be paid for. He makes his living on this.

Date: 2009/04/13 07:14:53, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 13 2009,02:06)
And William Wallace gets things backwards:        
Quote
This is a point that many evolanders don’t seem to understand: Models, even useful models, can be wrong.
Had he bothered to read the paper (it's freely available!), he would have seen that the first part of the discussion is about precisely this.

More generally, I think almost every professional "Evolander" would see his point as trivially true.

Oooh, oooh, ... brownie points for me ... this has been in my sig for years:
 
Quote
All models are wrong, some models are useful. - George E. P. Box


And what, again, is that ID model of the history of life?

Date: 2009/04/29 18:59:14, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 29 2009,14:05)
Brace for UD Gush-fest:

http://www.physorg.com/news160153064.html

I can't judge whether or not this guy's ideas will ever contribute to our understanding of the history of life, but it's clear to me that he is not promoting ID.

He says up front that he is using "design" to mean "configuration, pattern, geometry." He's not talking about purpose. In other words, he is using "design" the way it is used in engineering, not the way it is used in ID.

The UD'ers will have to blatantly equivocate on the word "design" to argue that this guy's work is pro-ID. Which, of course, is exactly what they will do.

Date: 2009/04/29 21:22:53, Link
Author: Freelurker
Turns out Bejan has already responded to questions about ID, at a blog called Bay of Fundie.

His last comment there provides a link to a recent paper of his. From that paper:
 
Quote
To preempt any confusion, this paper is not headed toward a creationist argument and here we declare explicitly that taking any excerpt from this paper and presenting it as if we are arguing for a spiritual source for “designedness” will be an intentional act of
dishonesty.

Date: 2009/06/09 22:36:13, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote
107
Freelurker_
06/09/2009
6:33 pm

Gil @68
 
Quote
I never said that “engineers are in a better position to judge biology than biologists.” I’ve claimed that when evolutionary biologists make claims about the creative power of their proposed mechanism of random variation and natural selection to produce systems that give every indication of being highly engineered technology, they should be required to produce at least some empirical evidence — not declarations of consensus within their incestuous group — that the proposed mechanism is actually capable of producing the technology we observe.

   In no other area of real, hard science would the extravagant, untested, and unverified claims of Darwinists be accepted without challenge.

Meanwhile, the National Academy of Engineering is Celebrating the Achievements of Charles Darwin

Gil, since you feel so strongly about this, you really should contact the NAE and straighten them out. Please let us know what they say.

Link

Date: 2009/06/10 21:48:43, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote (CeilingCat @ June 10 2009,06:34)
I ran into this by Pascal Boyer while surfing the net.  The article is titled, "How I found glaring errors in Einstein's calculations" and it's about the mail physicists get from nuts.  This rang a bell:            
Quote
Features of crackpot science

2    Most physics crackpots are engineers. More than 95% of my sample boast engineering degrees, or combine an undergraduate maths/physics degree followed by an engineering PhD or equivalent. This is not too surprising, as this may be the only kind of cursus that provides one with enough math background to understand the equations and formulae in the textbooks without actually studying maths and physics - which would show the crackpot why he’s misguided.
It's not just physics, Pascal.

Boyer is the author of, "Religion Explained", still the best book I've read on how religions get started.

Thanks for passing along that article. Boyer's explanation for why most physics crackpots are engineers makes sense to me, and I say that as an engineer. In engineering we have a name for someone who attempts engineering using only standard formulas, that is, without understanding the underlying principles. We call them a "handbook engineer." Similarly, Boyer describes crackpot physicists as textbook physicists.

The UD'ers have a similarly superficial understanding of science; they continually display a lack of understanding of models and modeling. They want to treat the formulas and theories in the science books as prescriptive laws (that have been discovered), rather than as descriptive and useful models (that have been developed.)

ETA: The centrality of the role of modeling is one of the main things that science and engineering share. ID, of course, eschews modeling.

Date: 2009/06/21 23:24:24, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote
Well, I propose an experiment:  sock and non-sock commenters at UD refrain from commenting on new posts for, say, two weeks.  Any posts in which you/your sock have already participated are still fair game: keep commenting if you so choose.  However, if you haven't already participated, you can't comment on the old posts either.  

I'm in. No comments from me 'till after the fireworks on the 4th of July.

Date: 2009/08/08 15:02:47, Link
Author: Freelurker
Last I heard, Lenny Flank lives in St. Petersburg too. Maybe you'll cross paths.

Date: 2009/08/18 16:54:04, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 18 2009,16:08)
stephen is a tard.  from the passage linked to by OM

   
Quote
Have you so soon forgotten: Darwinists at this site, with your blessing, assert with confidence that an automobile can be a part of a crankshaft because they will not acknowledge in principle that the whole is always greater than any one of its parts.


i don't think he can back that up.  analogy fail, again.

Nor drive it forward.

ETA: Or am I slow?

Date: 2009/12/24 18:56:01, Link
Author: Freelurker
All the best to the UD'ers during this holiday season.

Enjoy the festivities, but don't forget to practice moderation.

Date: 2010/01/16 12:07:33, Link
Author: Freelurker
Glad to hear that you're on the mend, Dave.
Take it easy for a while; spend a little time watching engineered birds.

Date: 2010/01/19 21:18:07, Link
Author: Freelurker
I guess they didn't like the way the "ID is instinctive to engineers" discussion was going; my last comment didn't make it through moderation:
   
Quote
Freelurker
01/19/2010
1:14 pm
   
Quote
Timaeus @192: But from an engineering perspective, intelligent design is the instinctive “default” explanation. It makes the most sense of what we can see plainly with our eyes.

That is your opinion. But you presume to speak for the general population of engineers. The argument by analogy works for you, so you insist that it should work for everyone else. As you well know, it doesn't. It is the height of arrogance for you to set yourself up as the judge of true engineering instincts. It's a fraud to be telling scientists and other non-engineers that belief in ID is instinctive for engineers.

Engineering is materialistic and mechanistic. ID is neither. Engineers want to know "what happened" and "how does it work." ID doesn't provide that. The theory of evolution is an extrapolation backwards in time of processes we see in action today. You don't agree with it, but that's not the point; it is perfectly natural for engineers to accept that theory, and they largely do.

You and I both look forward to getting more engineers in on the discussion. The problem is that it's been too easy for engineers to ignore the ID movement. IDists need to be much more public about the way they are describing engineering to non-engineers. You need to get the DI to put out some press releases disseminating such IDist notions as "ID is an engineering science," "ID is reverse engineering," and "Engineers instinctively believe in ID." You will get plenty of negative attention from engineers, including those of faith, when they see you misrepresenting their profession to advance your cause.

I thank the others who chimed in.

Edited to add: ["ID is an engineering science" comes from Dembski & Marks. "ID is reverse engineering" comes from Sal Cordova.]
Edited again to add: The comment showed up the next day, but of course by then it was way back in the thread.

Date: 2010/01/21 21:13:05, Link
Author: Freelurker
Don't know what's hidden, but the quote does not contain the letter "e," the most common letter in the English language.

Edited to add: Not having the "e," it also doesn't have the word "the," the most common word in the English language. [I'm now trying to calculate the CSI, to see if that gives me a clue.]

Date: 2010/02/13 20:43:18, Link
Author: Freelurker
So funny.

Gil Dodgen is running another one of his cheerleading sessions for technicians and engineers who are IDists. (Not Just Intelligently Designed, Intelligently Engineered)  
The following response of mine never appeared:
       
Quote
Freelurker
02/13/2010
4:51 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Gil,

If you were confident in your position you would go outside your blog and try to convince the general population of engineers. If you IDists just keep to yourselves, engineers are sure to continue to ignore the ID movement and to accept the theory of evolution.

One thing you could do, as I suggested once before, is contact the National Academy of Engineering and explain to them why it is obvious they shouldn't be celebrating the work of Charles Darwin. I bet that all the engineers reading this would like to hear the NAE's response.

Another thing you could do, as I recently suggested to Timaeus, is get the Discovery Institute to put out some press releases promoting such IDist notions as "ID is an engineering science," "ID is reverse engineering," and "Engineers instinctively believe in ID."

These guys are just as nutty when they talk about engineering as when they talk about science.

Edited to add: The comment appeared late the next day, way back in the thread.

Date: 2010/02/22 11:11:22, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 22 2010,11:54)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 22 2010,10:39)
 
Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 22 2010,01:44)
Church Burning Ebola Boys Arrested.

They turned out to be Baptists.

DaveTard: Still bringing the wrongety.

From that link

"Investigators say DNA evidence collected at the site of one of several Texas churches destroyed by arson links one of two suspects to the blaze"

What kind of object left at the scene of an arson would contain DNA?

Inquiring minds want to know (or maybe not).

Arsonists often defecate or urinate where they start the fire, to leave a mark. (Right, maybe you didn't want to know this.)

Date: 2010/04/11 10:35:02, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote (DiEb @ April 11 2010,03:22)
General Questions:
At the moment, there are a couple of my comments waiting for moderation at Uncommon Descent - for up to two days (in the threads We are not in Kansas anymore and Evolutionary Informatics Lab website receives facelift). I can still see the comments, so they don't seem to be pulled ( or is this a case of I can read dead comments?)
  • Is there any chance that they will appear?
  • Whom to call? There aren't any contact addresses at Uncommon Descent!
  • Who is responsible for Uncommon Descent - and its moderation policy? I can't find any info on the site!
  • What's the current record for the longest (not infinite) period of moderation?

What I've been doing is to copy here any comment of mine I make at UD that doesn't get through moderation or that doesn't get through within about 18 hours. I include the timestamp of the comment.

I've had to do this with many of my comments, but all the ones for which I have done this in the last several months have ultimately appeared at UD. (Of course, often the thread has moved on and my comment is way back from the end.)

There are probably many people, both here and at UD, who want to see your comments and to respond to them. Please keep at it!

Date: 2011/06/25 05:22:26, Link
Author: Freelurker
I donated.
It's for a good cause even if we don't get the movie.

Date: 2013/08/12 22:08:40, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote (Robin @ Aug. 12 2013,12:01)
   
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 11 2013,09:04)
   
Quote (Robin @ Aug. 07 2013,12:40)
Fairfax, Virginia chiming in! Though to be a bit more charitable (I mean...Fairfax isn't exactly the epicenter of the cultural or intellectual world and not exactly where most people "pass through") I am only about 30 minutes outside Washington, DC.

I've been to--and done shows in--Fairfax.  So, of course, DC will be the meeting place ????

Definitely works for me! Just let me know when you are passing through and I'll be happy to buy you a scotch or two. :)

Please let me know too; I live in the same area. Sounds like fun.

Date: 2013/10/07 19:46:18, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 07 2013,09:29)
ID
Design = manufacture

ID requires conflating the entirely different processes of design and manufacture.  The ID proponents have clearly never been involved in either design or production -- all that design itself produces is designs.

No doubt IDists do at times use the term "design" when they are talking about manufacture. But Behe and Dembski actually define design to be purposefulness.

Michael Behe defines “design” as “the purposeful arrangement of parts.” He says that he has detected such design in, for example, the bacterial flagellum. But he does not claim to be one of the people who discovered the arrangement of parts in the flagellum; he learned about that from scientists working in labs. Also note that he does not claim to have discovered the purposes the Designer has assigned to the flagellum or to any of its parts. So this “design” that Behe says that has detected is  a free-floating purposefulness. (Dembski calls it the “complement of regularity and chance.”)

As you say, they are not using the term "design" the way it is used by people involved in either design or production. For engineers, in particular, purposes and intents are more closely related to the concept of requirements, not design. The IDist use of the term "design" is alien to engineers. I gather that they use the term the way it is often used in philosophy and theology.

In engineering, a design is an arrangement (a pattern) of parts.  The design process is the process of coming up with an arrangement of parts. When we engineers read a design specification or attend a design review for a system, we expect to learn about what its parts will be, how they will be arranged, and how they will interact to fulfill the system’s purposes (its requirements).

Date: 2013/10/08 09:47:59, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 08 2013,08:01)
... and relies on a certain confusion of terminology.

Yes, IDists are entitled to their own jargon but they are not entitled to use a confusion of terms to try to associate their philosophical musings with the practical work of engineers.

Date: 2013/11/22 18:14:07, Link
Author: Freelurker
Quote (DiEb @ Nov. 20 2013,11:19)
           
Quote (Learned Hand @ Nov. 20 2013,15:28)
When was the last time Dembski posted on UD himself?

Last post: Design Inference vs. Design Hypothesis (October 1, 2012)

Dembski's reference to design hypotheses in the engineering sciences illustrates something I observed long ago: the relationship between the ID movement and the engineering profession is the same as the relationship between the ID movement and the science profession. IDists equivocate and make stuff up about engineering just as they do about science.

As I read it, Dembski suggests that engineers should, in the course of doing engineering, assume that things in nature are the products of an intelligence. A less charitable reading is that he claims that engineers already do this and that scientists should be like engineers in this way.

In either case, Dembski runs the risk of irritating the general population of engineers, thereby opening up a "second front" on which the ID movement would need to fight.

But the risk is actually low because engineers can so far afford to ignore the IDists, that is, we can afford it more than scientists can. (I've even noticed over the years that not even IDist engineers rally behind Dembski when he tries to associate the claims of IDists with the work of engineers.)

 

 

 

=====