Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Stephen Meyer on Engineers and ID

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In this, Part 2 in a series of posts based on the Q&A section in the recently released DVD, Case for a Creator, I offer the text of Meyer’s response to the question, Why are many engineers intrigued by intelligent design theory?

As a software engineer — in both the artificial-intelligence and aerospace research and development fields — I recognized that there were huge problems with the thesis that natural selection and random variation could produce complex information-processing systems, because designing such systems is what I do.

Here are Meyer’s comments in answer to the question posed to him above:

The origin of a new structure, of a miniature machine, or an information-processing system, or a circuit, is an engineering problem. Oftentimes people have criticized the intelligent design movement because there are so many prominent professors of engineering in our number. But we don’t make any apologies for that, because engineers are precisely the scientists that know what it takes to design things, to build things. And the question of origins is essentially a question of engineering. How did these systems get built? And when you have so many top-level professors of engineering — in mechanical, electrical or software engineering — saying, I think we’re looking at systems that clearly show evidence of design, I think the Darwinists have a serious problem. If they can’t persuade those people, that the 19th-century mechanism of selection and variation is up to this task, I think that the theory is in serious trouble.

Comments
I completely agree too. Stsrting from my background in both computer science and microelectronics I was able to recognize the overwhelming signs of design in biology as soon as I had the possibility to read books such as Behe's DBB and watch videos such as UMLkairos
January 7, 2007
January
01
Jan
7
07
2007
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT
Agreed. I supported an airborne fire-control radar system in the military when I left my world-view of naturalism for a world-view of the Designer. Just considering the array of feedback subsystems that control the human vision system overawes me and leaves me stumped as to how anyone can postulate such a system arose by random variation and errors in DNA coding.benkeshet
January 6, 2007
January
01
Jan
6
06
2007
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT
I am a software engineering student, of course I'm not an expert :), but I know what does it mean to DESIGN, and what we see in life is programming, software engineering, DESIGN! Don't take my word for it, "DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created." Bill GatesIDist
January 6, 2007
January
01
Jan
6
06
2007
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT
I agree. As someone who also designs funtionally integrated systems for a living, I understand what it means to make "simple" changes in highly integrated code systems. Once you have a firm grap on the nature of the problem, wishful speculations do little to persuade you that ateleological forces can account for such things in nature. Sure, Darwinists can cite "their imaginations as evidence" all day long (to borrow a phrase), but I know firsthand what goes into building systems. Needless to say, I remain unpersuaded.Atom
January 6, 2007
January
01
Jan
6
06
2007
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply