bfast, a regular at Bill Dembski's censorship-riddled 'blog' Uncommon Descent, writes the following:
Gil, how much does this guy know about biology? I would suspect that any
“brilliant” electrical engineer would line up with us software developers to
voice his incredulity.
This is in reference to evolution. Because, afterall, software engineers have some sort of special insight into biology, even if they don't know anything about it...
But wait, it gets better - the very next comment:
Well, I am a software engineer and I don’t know much about biology. I always
suspected that Darwinism was bogus but what got me convinced is my interest in
artificial intelligence and the brain. I eventually learned enough about the
human brain to know that it is irreducibly complex. The way the different parts
of the brain work to complement each other’s function could not have evolved
gradually a la Darwin. It was designed, without a doubt.
Incredible....
15 comments:
The fact that someone doesn't have a degree in biology doesn't mean they cannot logically comprehend biology. I am a computer engineer myself but when it comes to DE I don't open up a textbook on digital or assembly language, instead I read material related to DE. The difference between an engineer or mathematician vs. someone with no background knowledge or practice with complex systems is that they are more likely to believe in the idea of complex biological information processing systems coming about by chance and luck processes. When it comes down to it, its all about logic, everything in reality including programming, biological systems, Intel CPU's etc...Its not religion that has falsified Darwinian evolution, its logical criteria/thinking that has.
"Software engineer creationists"? LOL!
I never heard of a "Software engineer Darwinist" before, maybe they don't exist.
Its ironic you insert the label "creationists" because -- they are -- in fact -- creating "software". If they were "Software engineer Darwinists" they wouldn't be creating anything since all they would have to do is give the computer the benefit of the doubt to write its own specialized programs that would hopefully meet market demands.
Microsoft would pay billions if Darwinists would finally reveal the mechanism/s for creating specified purpose driven software by way of stochastic processes.
We have another one....
The fact that someone doesn't have a degree in biology doesn't mean they cannot logically comprehend biology.
Not at all. But having a degree in software engineering does nto mean that they have a de facto superior grasp of the material, either. Which is one of the implicit points that you apparently missed.
I am a computer engineer myself but when it comes to DE I don't open up a textbook on digital or assembly language, instead I read material related to DE.
Then you rank with a honored few...(but I think I spoke too soon...)
The difference between an engineer or mathematician vs. someone with no background knowledge or practice with complex systems is that they are more likely to believe in the idea of complex biological information processing systems coming about by chance and luck processes.
And you provide yet another datum point for me. Those with limited understanding of DE and biological processes in general but whom possess knowledge of
'complex systems' in terms of computers and the like seem to want to directly apply what they do know to what they don't.
Case in point - "complex biological information processing systems coming about by chance and luck processes" does not instill in me a great deal of confidence regarding your knowledge of biological systems in the least.
When it comes down to it, its all about logic, everything in reality including programming, biological systems, Intel CPU's etc...
Yeah, sure, they are all the same thing....
Its not religion that has falsified Darwinian evolution, its logical criteria/thinking that has.
Right... Because only creatinist engineers can think logically and critically. That is why they prefer to believe without skepticism that an anthropomorphic tribal deity blew on some dirt and the first man appeared.
"Software engineer creationists"? LOL!
I never heard of a "Software engineer Darwinist" before, maybe they don't exist.
Actually, they do. But they are typically not so arrogant and pig ignoraqnt to run around claiming that they have special insights into field that, well, they really don't understand very well.
Its ironic you insert the label "creationists" because -- they are -- in fact -- creating "software". If they were "Software engineer Darwinists" they wouldn't be creating anything since all they would have to do is give the computer the benefit of the doubt to write its own specialized programs that would hopefully meet market demands.
Oh wow! So totally clever! Another creationist nitwit with an irrelevant background writing stupid things on issues they clearly don't get!
You already proved you are ignorant of DE, now it seems you are just plain silly.
Microsoft would pay billions if Darwinists would finally reveal the mechanism/s for creating specified purpose driven software by way of stochastic processes.
Why would they do that? Darwinists are nto so stupid as to not understand their own theory - they leave such stupidity to overconfident Dunning-Kruger poster boys.
Like, apparently, you.
[quote]Not at all. But having a degree in software engineering does nto mean that they have a de facto superior grasp of the material, either. Which is one of the implicit points that you apparently missed.
[/quote]
Nobody is claiming they're expertise as a software engineer has therefore equal or superior insight in Biology (the only one to my knowledge who has made this claim is you). Apparently, even those with a phd in Biology who devote they're lives to science and happen to disagree with the claims of DE have been labeled creationists. In light of that, what does it matter (in the end anyways) to a Darwinist who chooses to judge someone not by they're actual knowledge but by they're `objections to DE` - which in they're minds happen to be non-existent.
IMO, the real reason to why software engineers and the-like have a seemingly advanced knowledge/insight is that they can relate they're primary discipline (which consists of working with fundamentally complex design procedures/problems) to biological systems which are a complex topic and are in many areas synonymous. As I said, everything is about logic, from there, logical criteria, relations, expressions, decisions and conclusions are made and can seem quite arrogant and all-knowing. And I do agree with you on that point, but, this could also mean actually "knowing" and not "pretend-to-know" . In your view they are "software engineers" -therefore- they cannot know.
[quote]
"complex biological information processing systems coming about by chance and luck processes" does not instill in me a great deal of confidence regarding your knowledge of biological systems in the least.
[/quote]
Which part of that made you feel that way? Was it the "complex" part, "information processing" part, "chance and luck" part? I am not sure which part your referring too.
[quote]
You already proved you are ignorant of DE, now it seems you are just plain silly.[/quote]
I was at one point completely ignorant of DE --my instincts told me so. But afterwards --I felt that maybe I was a bit harsh and decided to fully investigate what has been shown scientifically --over the years, well, back to square one it seems-- call it ignorance from lack of knowledge if you will, I call it ignorance from lack of absorbing distorted knowledge.
BB code does not work here. I should think a computer engineer might be able to figger' that out...
Not at all. But having a degree in software engineering does not mean that they have a de facto superior grasp of the material, either. Which is one of the implicit points that you apparently missed.
Nobody is claiming they're expertise as a software engineer has therefore equal or superior insight in Biology (the only one to my knowledge who has made this claim is you).
Actually, I have documented this.
It is implied here, and stated outright here. Well, the second guy is a mechanical engineer, but it is all basically the same thing.
It is a fairly common implication in creationist with engineering background writings.
Apparently, even those with a phd in Biology who devote they're lives to science and happen to disagree with the claims of DE have been labeled creationists.
Such as?
In light of that, what does it matter (in the end anyways) to a Darwinist who chooses to judge someone not by they're actual knowledge but by they're `objections to DE` - which in they're minds happen to be non-existent.
Sounds like the usual creationist fantasy gibberish. What IS a "Darwinist" these days, anyway? And why did these supposed PhD biologists disagree with 'Darwinism' and get labeled creationists? Was Kimura labelled a creationist? Or are you referring to those who really are creationists and just tried to use their degrees to argue from 'authority'?
IMO, the real reason to why software engineers and the-like have a seemingly advanced knowledge/insight is that they can relate they're primary discipline (which consists of working with fundamentally complex design procedures/problems) to biological systems which are a complex topic and are in many areas synonymous.
You conclude what you assume - a logical fallacy - that such folk CAN relate the two.
Experience shows that this is actually difficult for them to truly do:
"Teaching introductory biology to MIT undergraduates, Walker experiences the disciplinary disconnect firsthand. "It's a constant challenge," he says, "to find ways to make biology comprehensible and relevant to students who think like engineers."
More likely, it is the "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" effect.
As I said, everything is about logic, from there, logical criteria, relations, expressions, decisions and conclusions are made and can seem quite arrogant and all-knowing.
Do you really think that "logic" trumps evidence? It sounds like you are making an argument via analogy - is THAT 'logical'?
Analogies are not evidence, sorry.
And I do agree with you on that point, but, this could also mean actually "knowing" and not "pretend-to-know" . In your view they are "software engineers" -therefore- they cannot know.
Ah - here is your big mistake.
That is not my position at all. My position is that all too often, creationists with engineering backgrounds think - insist, even - that BECAUSE they are engineers, THEY have some special insights into biology. It is not true at all that engineers cannot be knowledgible about biology - I in fact know several who are very knowledgible of the subject - it is that THESE PARTICULAR engineers are just arrogant nitwits who use their oh so special engineering backgrounds to claim that evolution is false. As a biologist - and I am FAR from alone on this - I can easily tell how much or how little one of these folks actually understands, just as I am sure that you could tell right away how little I knew of engineering if I started writing proclamations about it. I have encountered bfast before, for example, and I know from experience that he is quite nearly clueless, but BECAUSE he is a creationist, he KNOWS evolution is wrong, and BECAUSE he is an engineer, he KNOWS that things like genomes cannot arise via natural means BECAUSE things like computer code do not.
If that is the type of logic that engineering schools employ...
"complex biological information processing systems coming about by chance and luck processes" does not instill in me a great deal of confidence regarding your knowledge of biological systems in the least.
Which part of that made you feel that way? Was it the "complex" part, "information processing" part, "chance and luck" part? I am not sure which part your referring too.
Yes.
Primarily the 'chance and luck' part, but the others are really just the projective application of field specific jargon in a subtle argument via analogy. Calling something an "information processing" system is a euphemism, an analogy.
You already proved you are ignorant of DE, now it seems you are just plain silly.
I was at one point completely ignorant of DE --my instincts told me so. But afterwards --I felt that maybe I was a bit harsh and decided to fully investigate what has been shown scientifically --over the years, well, back to square one it seems-- call it ignorance from lack of knowledge if you will, I call it ignorance from lack of absorbing distorted knowledge.
Ah, sure, so you 'saw the light' be reading - what?
"Icons..."?
DBB?
Some crap by Sarfati or Gitt or Spetner?
Distorted knowledge, indeed.
LOL Okay YOU WIN!...have it your way. It was obviously a waste of time commenting here, arguing with "born-that-way" Darwinists will only get you the usual "its all creationist gibberish" responses. Have fun on this blog, hopefully someone responds within the next few years.
I will however respond to the only thing worth responding:
[quote]I can easily tell how much or how little one of these folks actually understands, just as I am sure that you could tell right away how little I knew of engineering if I started writing proclamations about it. I have encountered bfast before, for example, and I know from experience that he is quite nearly clueless, but BECAUSE he is a creationist, he KNOWS evolution is wrong, and BECAUSE he is an engineer, he KNOWS that things like genomes cannot arise via natural means BECAUSE things like computer code do not.
If that is the type of logic that engineering schools employ...
[/quote] (and yes, I know about the bb code, that is simply my style)
That is a fair analysis of the issue however being a biologist I assume you know by now that biology is a large field, DE being only one of the many areas that biological studies incorporate. Engineering is the same, as human beings "we can only know and do so much". Bill Gates was a college drop-out and now he owns Microsoft, what does that tell you? Quite frankly, anything is self-learnable/attainable. For some intellects out there, a degree in Biology helps, however it is not a requirement. You seem to be saying it is a requirement.
What am I to say about those engineers designing programs to emulate Darwinian evolutionary processes? Must they also carry a degree in biology to know the fundamentals of DE theory? Or are they automatically qualified authoriti, tell me it ain't so!
LOL Okay YOU WIN!...have it your way. It was obviously a waste of time commenting here, arguing with "born-that-way" Darwinists will only get you the usual "its all creationist gibberish" responses. Have fun on this blog, hopefully someone responds within the next few years.
It was a waste fo time for a "born that way" creationist to claim that we can ignore evidence because 'critical thinking' tells mne so.
I will however respond to the only thing worth responding:
I can easily tell how much or how little one of these folks actually understands, just as I am sure that you could tell right away how little I knew of engineering if I started writing proclamations about it. I have encountered bfast before, for example, and I know from experience that he is quite nearly clueless, but BECAUSE he is a creationist, he KNOWS evolution is wrong, and BECAUSE he is an engineer, he KNOWS that things like genomes cannot arise via natural means BECAUSE things like computer code do not.
If that is the type of logic that engineering schools employ...
(and yes, I know about the bb code, that is simply my style)
That is a fair analysis of the issue however being a biologist I assume you know by now that biology is a large field, DE being only one of the many areas that biological studies incorporate. Engineering is the same, as human beings "we can only know and do so much". Bill Gates was a college drop-out and now he owns Microsoft, what does that tell you?
It doesn't tell me that Gates knows anything about biology. I know biology ios a broad field, as is engineering, so I fail to see what point you are trying to make. If engineers do not understand all of their own 'field', why should I assume that they would have any special insights into something that is not even close to their field?
Quite frankly, anything is self-learnable/attainable. For some intellects out there, a degree in Biology helps, however it is not a requirement. You seem to be saying it is a requirement.
You seem to keep misinterpreting things.
I am, in fact, saying something almost the opposite of that. I am saying that merely being an engineer does NOT give one special insights into anything but engineering. Did you even read the post you originally replied to? Allow me to recap a few highlights:
bfast (an engineer) wrote, in response to a claim that a 'brilliant engineer' found IDcreationism silly:
"...how much does this guy know about biology? I would suspect that any “brilliant” electrical engineer would line up with us software developers to voice his incredulity."
Why do you suppose bfast just knows that a brilliant engineer would side with his take on the issue?
Another dupe wrote:
"Well, I am a software engineer and I don’t know much about biology.... It [the brain] was designed, without a doubt."
Hmmm... A software engineer all but boasts of being ignorant of biology, but has no doubts that evolution did not occur.
Hmmmmm....
What am I to say about those engineers designing programs to emulate Darwinian evolutionary processes? Must they also carry a degree in biology to know the fundamentals of DE theory? Or are they automatically qualified authoriti, tell me it ain't so!
I suspect that such folk take the time to actually learn about it and understand it, as opposed to reading some creationist nonsense that props up their preconceived notions.
I notice that you did not write a thing about your source of 'knowledge' re: the DE.
Imagine that...
Is this your idea of `critical` thinking, tell me it ain't so!
Should I expect a detailed analysis in the next `science` textbook "The God delusion Part Two" by Richard Darkwings?
All you have squabbled about here is you dislike the fact that ID has much smarter people on they're side and nothing more then drunk chance and luck happy animals `the Darwinians` on your side. Anything else I missed?
[quote]I suspect that such folk take the time to actually learn about it and understand it, as opposed to reading some creationist nonsense that props up their preconceived notions.[/quote]
So whoever agrees with DE also understands it, and whoever disagrees with DE doesn't understand it. Conclusion: everyone who doesn't believe in DE is an idiot, regardless of what background knowledge they have or what degree they hold. Highly typical if you ask me.
[quote]
I am, in fact, saying something almost the opposite of that. I am saying that merely being an engineer does NOT give one special insights into anything but engineering. Did you even read the post you originally replied to? Allow me to recap a few highlights:
[/quote]
No, what your actually saying is that whatever the circumstances, engineers should just `shut-up about it`.
[quote]
Why do you suppose bfast just knows that a brilliant engineer would side with his take on the issue?[/quote]
Well, I can concede your point here, that is... `if you actually presented the argument fairly instead of nitpicking statements of your likings`.
The very first sentence was the following by Bfast:
"Gil, how much does this guy know about biology?"
Which implies that a priori knowledge of Biology is required even if this person is a brilliant electrical engineer.
You stated you had an exchange with Bfast and your intuition told you he had a very poor understanding of biology, can you provide a link to that exchange between you and him?
Is this your idea of `critical` thinking, tell me it ain't so!
Well, I guess the argument by analogy software engineer would know all about critical thinking….
Should I expect a detailed analysis in the next `science` textbook "The God delusion Part Two" by Richard Darkwings?
I am unaware of any claim that “The God Delusion” was being promoted as a science textbook – it is not like “Of Pandas and People” masquerading as such. Not that it matters, I have not read it and don’t plan to. My positions do not stem from what gurus tell me to think in their vanity press books. Unlike some folks, apparently.
All you have squabbled about here is you dislike the fact that ID has much smarter people on they're side and nothing more then drunk chance and luck happy animals `the Darwinians` on your side. Anything else I missed?
Yes – reality. I’m not sure what your criteria for being considered ‘smart’ is, but I don’t think arguments from personal disbelief, arguments from analogy, arguments form ignorance, and distortions and fabrications are anything to boast about. The, of course, there is the little thing called Dover…
I suspect that such folk take the time to actually learn about it and understand it, as opposed to reading some creationist nonsense that props up their preconceived notions.
So whoever agrees with DE also understands it, and whoever disagrees with DE doesn't understand it.
That seems to be the way it works out most of the time. When anti-evolutionists blabber on about “random chance” and the like, I can be pretty certain that they either got their information for ideologues or are being deceptive. Which is it in your case?
Conclusion: everyone who doesn't believe in DE is an idiot, regardless of what background knowledge they have or what degree they hold. Highly typical if you ask me.
Yes, it is. It does seem that those that actually understand evolution and are not already creationists accept it. YEC Harvard trained geologist Kurt Wiser has admitted that he would be an evolutionist if all he considered was the evidence. Steve Austin, creationist geologist at the ICR, still apparently lies about being ‘converted’ to YECism after studying at Mt.St.Helens, this despite the well known fact that he was writing YEC articles under a pen name years before the 1980 eruption. You have people like Behe claiming that there are no papers on the evolution of the immune system. You have Dembski claiming to be some sort of mathematical genius yet his own graduate advisor says his applications of his math to evolution are bogus. You have Jon Wells using out of context quotes and total distortions and disinformation in his silly books to lie to the underinformed. You have people like Walter ReMine claiming that Haldane’s dilemma disproves human evolution from an apelike ancestor because there is not enough time for the traits to have evolved nor enough mutations to account for them, yet he cannot tell what the ancestor was nor ho0w many mutations such adaptice traits would have required. You have people like bfast and KBC1963 claiming that because they are engineers, they know evolution did not happen.
So, yes, it is highly typical for people whio claim evolution false to be ignorant of it or to be purposefully deceptive about it. Which do you prefer?
I am, in fact, saying something almost the opposite of that. I am saying that merely being an engineer does NOT give one special insights into anything but engineering. Did you even read the post you originally replied to? Allow me to recap a few highlights:
No, what your [sic] actually saying is that whatever the circumstances, engineers should just `shut-up about it`.
Typical creationist – distorting your opponent’s words. In fact, I said clearly that I know many engineers that are very knowledgible about evolution. But none of these engineers I know are you, nor any of those I just mentioned. I do agree with creationist Jerry Bergman, however, when he writes:
“A key to success is knowing what one can speak authoritatively about and knowing where one's limits of knowledge and expertise are. All of us have opinions which lie outside of our area of expertise. Most intelligent people are cognizant of this fact and therefore usually avoid pontificating on areas they know little about.”
Why do you suppose bfast just knows that a brilliant engineer would side with his take on the issue?
Well, I can concede your point here, that is... `if you actually presented the argument fairly instead of nitpicking statements of your likings`.
The very first sentence was the following by Bfast:
"Gil, how much does this guy know about biology?"
Which implies that a priori knowledge of Biology is required even if this person is a brilliant electrical engineer.
Bfast is implying that if he understands biology and is an engineer he should side with him. But the opposite, in practice, seems to be the case – those engineers that REALLY are educated in biology and are not creationists beforehand tend NOT to be creationists. I wonder why that is?
You stated you had an exchange with Bfast and your intuition told you he had a very poor understanding of biology, can you provide a link to that exchange between you and him?
Actually, I said I had encountered him before. I’ve read his simplistic tripe on a couple of forums, including ARN and EvolutionIsDead.
But I thought you were leaving?
No, Bfast was obviously not implying that. I can't see how asking the question "What does he know about biology" to be synonymous with "does he understand Biology".
Either way, anyone with a degree or iota of knowledge and understanding in Engineering can filter out the non-sense (ie: B.S) of DE much more efficiently and effectively then someone without.
It is quite natural for an engineer to apply critical thinking skills rather intensely to something as logically impaired as DET, as opposed to someone who gets fed the spoon of magic pixie dust right from the get-go.
Since intelligent design is just another term used for technology, I expect most supporters of ID to be engineers, according to you this doesn't make sense.
Either way, anyone with a degree or iota of knowledge and understanding in Engineering can filter out the non-sense (ie: B.S) of DE much more efficiently and effectively then someone without.
You just proved my point.
And you don't even know it, I'd bet.
Problem is, since it is so difficult for engineers to (according to MIT professors) understand biology, I think your thesis is garbage.
You are getting boring. I'll bet the underinformed acolytes at UD could use another uninformed yet supremely arrogant cheerleader with an engineering background to pontificate on things they do not understand.
[quote]Problem is, since it is so difficult for engineers to (according to MIT professors) understand biology, I think your thesis is garbage.[/quote]
LOL, this is far beyond pathetic, it just shows how much of a `scientific mind` Darwinists really have, I wonder if they can do basic math (ie: adding, subtracting, multiplication and long division). The only thesis that is garbage is the OP, anything else beyond that is a bonus.
You're boring and predictable and no longer welcome here.
Problem is, since it is so difficult for engineers to (according to MIT professors) understand biology, I think your thesis is garbage.
LOL, this is far beyond pathetic, it just shows how much of a `scientific mind` Darwinists really have, I wonder if they can do basic math (ie: adding, subtracting, multiplication and long division). The only thesis that is garbage is the OP, anything else beyond that is a bonus.
Wow, brilliant comeback.
You really show how much smarter software engineer creationists are than everybody else.
Go away, or I will have to go DaveScot on you.
Post a Comment