Science And Engineering

_{October 5, 2006

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Scientist says: Science is the discovery of how things in the natural world work. Engineering is the practical application of scientific discovery.

Engineer says: Engineering is the practical application of scientific discovery. Scientific discovery is simply reverse engineering.

So you see, it’s really all engineering. You either take something that already exists and reverse engineer it (that’s science) or you take the knowledge gained from reverse engineering and create something that doesn’t already exist with it.

Comments

Gee, I am sorry to be just a little old retired zoologist and bench scientist myself. Just think of what I could have been if I had only been an engineer. And just think about how much more my several sources could have contributed if only they had been engineers too. It is scary isn't it? It is hard to believe isn't it? I love it so! "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison_{October 7, 2006
October
10
Oct
7
07
2006
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PST}

DaveScot, Your thesis is fascinating! I was trying to think up a couple of examples: Engineers went to sea, noticed that ships would "come up" over the horizon, and presto, scientists discovered that the earth was round. Engineers building homes and docks near the sea observed the tides coincided with the phases of the moon, and presto, scientists discovered that gravity works between large bodies in space. Engineers built canals and irrigation ditches, and presto scientists discovered fluid dynamics. Engineers out hunting observed that large birds wheeled in circles without falling to the earth, all without a beat of their wings, and presto scientists discovered updrafts. Is this the sort of thing you had in mind?Ekstasis_{October 6, 2006
October
10
Oct
6
06
2006
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PST}

Dave: You must be an engineer?DonaldM_{October 6, 2006
October
10
Oct
6
06
2006
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PST}

P. Phillips I must've read a good 10 titles from Hogan but the sacred cow wasn't one of them. I've read reviews and synopses and all the cows deserved a good kick as far as I can tell.DaveScot_{October 6, 2006
October
10
Oct
6
06
2006
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PST}

Anyone interested in calling in, Dawkins was advertised to be on NPRÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Ã¢â‚¬Å“Science FridayÃ¢â‚¬Â program for 10/06/06, promoting and amplifying his Ã¢â‚¬Å“Delusion.Ã¢â‚¬ÂEmkay_{October 5, 2006
October
10
Oct
5
05
2006
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PST}

Just in - The Spectator review today of Dawkins The God Delusion . You have to register to read the review, but I'll provide the link and an excerpt. I have quoted Charles Moore, i.e., this essay: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/01/08/do0801.xml Now, on to his review, and as I just did, he quotes Shakespeare: http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/books/25609/a-voice-crying-in-the-wilderness.thtml P. Phillips_{October 5, 2006
October
10
Oct
5
05
2006
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PST}

Mats, I read that, thanks for the link. It looks like the New Scientist spy never actually showed up at a meeting and so never really did any decent spying. I wonder what she was thinking?Jehu_{October 5, 2006
October
10
Oct
5
05
2006
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PST}

Mats, John A. Davison may remark, but "Celeste Biever", seriously? Everything about this seems a parody. Then again, Darwinists are unacknowledged masters of parody with a straight face! Ã¢â‚¬Å“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.Ã¢â‚¬Â --John A. Davison "Darwinian theory is truly risible, John A. Davison quite unsurprisable." -- P.S. Phillips "If you can't quote yourself, quote John A. Davison." -- P.S. PhillipsP. Phillips_{October 5, 2006
October
10
Oct
5
05
2006
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PST}

Check out how low Darwinists will go -> http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/celeste_biever_secret_agent_ne.html Bill's blog is probably the hottest ID blog, so news like those can't be missed! CheersMats_{October 5, 2006
October
10
Oct
5
05
2006
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PST}

DaveScot, have you read Kicking the Sacred Cow by James P. Hogan? He pretty much said the same thing, and that is how I found out about the work of Lee Spetner (on the Time and Junk DNA threads). http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200407/0743488288.htm?blurb http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200407/0743488288___1.htm He wrote in the introduction, which you may read above:
Introduction Engineering and the Truth Fairies Science really doesn't exist. Scientific beliefs are either proved wrong, or else they quickly become engineering. Everything else is untested speculation. Ã¢â‚¬â€JPH
P. Phillips_{October 5, 2006
October
10
Oct
5
05
2006
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PST}

JGuy Engineering is science with a crystal ball? I kind of like that. I've always considered myself prescient! And that word itself is PRE- SCIENCE with only a single random point mutation plus the insertion of a non-coding letter. I really think you're onto something there.DaveScot_{October 5, 2006
October
10
Oct
5
05
2006
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PST}

Could it be that engineering is reverse science...ie. Discovering things which will exist. :pJGuy_{October 5, 2006
October
10
Oct
5
05
2006
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PST}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply