On 10/20/2010 8:58 AM, Darren New wrote:
>> Sadly, this is not uncommon. However, many, including myself, have
>> argued that you cannot have such a drastic error in thinking, and not
>> have it spill over into your own discipline,
>
> Huh. Odd. Some of the smartest people I know doing computers are
> devoutly religious. I can't imagine why you'd think that belief that
> Jesus sacrificed himself to save you would interfere with your ability
> to design computer software, for example.
>
Right.. Because there isn't, for example, a very weird association 
between either engineers *or* computer science, and the tendency of both 
to think ID makes more sense than Evolution. Its invariably one or the 
other, which ends up being the discipline someone belongs to, when they 
claim to advocate ID. By the same token, there is at least one computer 
scientist, who worked for the military, who in fact "claims" that 
genetic algorithms don't work. He knows this because he worked with 
them, supposedly, yet, nearly every modern weapons tracking system uses 
them, because its easier to "evolve" a system that tracks 250 
simultaneous targets, than it is to engineer one.

>> I flat out do not believe
>
> So, in other words, "seems reasonable, so I have faith that it is so"?
>
Sorry, did I make the mistake of failing to denote "believe" in this 
context as, "based on my experience, not just because I want it to be 
true." Because, you know.. Having nearly every moron I have ever seen 
show up on a science blog denying evolution either say, "I reject it for 
religion", or, "Religion is part of it, but I am also a computer 
scientist, or engineer, and things just don't *work* that way, or happen 
without a creator!"

It does effect things. But, as I said, it may not be in a way that is 
obvious to an outside observer. You don't need to believe in the earth 
being billions of years old to be a car mechanic either, but if you 
found yourself having to find your own oil... all of the sudden your 
"expertise" in internal combustion engines has just been rendered 
worthless, by having no fracking clue where, or why, to look for fuel 
for the damn thing. If you have no need **at all** to find it, its never 
a problem. Same for someone that thinks genetics is a lie, and programs 
computers. If they never deal with the obscurity of genetic algorithms, 
and they don't need to build their own chips, they can go around 
blissfully ignorant of everything they program, or use to program, that 
may have, at some point, used them to make the product. Same with every 
other field. If you never deal with the stuff "under the table", which 
is just the wiring/parts/mechanics of the system you use to do your job, 
you may be completely unaffected by the fact that you also believe 
something contradicted by the existence of the gadget you are using in 
the first place. So, in a bloody trivial sense, you are quite correct. 
It is possible for someone to even be a neurosurgeon, and deny the brain 
as anything but and "interface" to souls, but I for one want to frakking 
know my doctor doesn't hold this view, if he is going to be working in 
my head. Same with the guy building my car, or my TV, or coding my 
software. I want to know that they not only are using the best ideas, 
but that if they *need* to reinvent the wheel, for some reason, they are 
not trying to do so by referencing passages in the Bible that suggest 
that "round" objects can be made using 3 for the value of PI.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message