No, it really is growing atheism. While there have always been a few intellectually serious atheists, for most people, atheism is basically a reaction, and they put about the same level of thought into it as those who decide to continue going to church because that's how they grew up. If you spend some time reading popular forums like Slashdot or Digg, what you'll quickly come to realize is that the vast majority of what's said in support of atheism or against any particular religion is unsophisticated and childish. (Or, to be blunt, you would realize that if you weren't in the thick of offering such arguments yourself.) Richard Dawkins and co. make a lot of sense to a lot of people right now because they are expressing the spirit of the age, not because they are producing solid or novel arguments. In fact, their arguments, which are incessantly parroted, are widely regarded by professional, atheistic philosophers as being an embarrasment to the "cause".
Why? What do you think is going on here? I'll take a stab.. There are definitely some situations when under the guise of seeking advice, a person is really looking for any rationale he can find to be relieved of what he knows to be his ethical responsibility. Is there something about this situation that leads you to believe that this or something similar is occuring?
Feelings, I'll politely suggest to you, should not be the final arbiter of ethical decisions. We often feel guilty about or responsible for things we shouldn't, and vice versa. Asking for advice is one way to see our way clear of that. At least, that's the case when the advice is actual reasoning and not just more feelings.
It is correct that Charles Whitman shot people in Texas.
However:
1) He didn't shoot from a water tower. It was from the observation deck of the University of Texas at Austin administration building. 2) Many students and professors did fight back by firing up at him with hunting rifles.
Happily, your previous point about concealed carry laws is perhaps correct. According to Wikipedia:
"Ramiro Martinez, an officer credited with neutralizing Whitman, later stated in his book that the civilian shooters should be credited, as they made it difficult for Whitman to take careful aim without being hit."
You were doing more or less ok until you got to the energy density part.
According to Wikipedia, liquid hydrogen has a density of 70.8 kg/m^3. That sets a generous upper bound on the density we could hope to achieve in pure hydrogen storage.
Let's assume a density of 700 kg/m^3 for our liquid hydrocarbon. According to Wikipedia (again), gasoline is around 737 kg/m^3. Let's further assume that hydrogen makes up about 15.8% of the weight of our fuel. I arrived at that number by doing a straight average of the percentages for C5 to C12 linear alkanes. That means the part of the density we can attribute to usable hydrogen is around 111 kg/m^3.
So, in terms of effective hydrogen density, liquid hydrocarbons beat the pants off of even pure liquid hydrogen.
I think the gp is right.. under 100 nm is still the most common standard. But, IIRC, a few months ago a seminar speaker in my department casually remarked that many people in the micro- and nanofluidics community were applying the nano label to structures under a micron.
Several folks have pointed out that the headline inappropriately anthropomorphizs what is really just a solution discovered by a genetic algorithm. That might be true. If it is, let's be consistent. People don't lie or tell the truth, either, because our brains are also just a solution discovered by a genetic algorithm.
It's a little difficult to answer that in a way that doesn't seem completely contrived because there are always questions about how to understand new discoveries. Having said that, here are a few things that immediately come to mind:
- Discovery of Jesus' remains
- Evidence that the authors of the New Testament colluded (a letter from Peter to Paul saying, "hee hee, we sure fooled them")
- Evidence that the authors of the NT were duped (documents describing a Roman plot to steal Jesus' body)
- Evidence that the gospels we have now were substantially altered at some point (earlier versions of the gospels in which Jesus was not raised from the dead)
Knowledge can be examined, researched and if found lacking, abandoned or improved upon. Faith is a matter of... well, faith. It's entirely circular.
It seems clear that I'm not using your definition of faith. You're going to have to contend with my definition or admit that your statements are irrelevant to my position.
My sig "betrays" me, huh? Thanks for the tip. I should have realized that for myself when I added it, I suppose. It would be most unfortunate if it became publicly known that I secretly harbor such shameful views.:)
Dictionaries try to provide the full range of meanings for words. Some people do use the word faith to mean "firm belief in something for which there is no proof." I personally try to avoid using it that way, even in contexts where it's appropriate, because as the gp demonstrated, people are apt to equivocate and apply this defintion everywhere.
When I and I think most other (hopefully) thoughtful Christians use the word faith in a theological sense, we mean more strictly something like the first definition: "belief and trust in and loyalty to God". Faith in this sense does not exclude proof. My 85 year old grandmother trusts God even though she's never troubled herself to study theistic arguments or the historical evidence for the resurrection. Richard Swinburne, who until recently was a professor of philosophy at Oxford, researched those things professionally. They both have faith. One just has good reasons (from a "scientific" point of view) and the other doesn't.
To be a little more precise, what distinguishes faith from plain old knowledge is not that there are good reasons for one but not the other. It's that faith carries over into action. I had a roommate in college who refused to fly. He knew the statistics - that travel by air is safer than travel by car. But in spite of this knowledge, this evidence, he lacked faith in the safety of air travel. He didn't really trust airplanes. To use a biblical example, the demons are said to believe that there is one God (James 2:19). What is lacking is, as the definition puts it, the consequent "trust in and loyalty to God."
Anyway, what I observe more and more lately is a blithe dismissal of religion simply because faith is supposedly belief contrary to evidence. If you want to conclude that the evidence and arguments for some religion aren't very good, that's one thing. At that point you are free to accuse me of believing things without good reasons. But it's circular and unhelpful to conclude that i'm irrational for having faith because faith is by definition irrational. You are assuming what you should be trying to prove.
The problem is that these two groups can never get along because they have no common ground. While the evolutionist will base their argument on logic, the creationist will base their argument on faith. Faith is ignored in the logic argument (since it doesn't affect hard facts) and the other way around.
Have YOU seen such a debate? If so, I'm pretty sure your question-begging definition of the word "faith" completely distorted your understanding of what the creationist participant said and why he said it.
Or maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean. Can you be a little more specific about what you mean when you say that the creationist will "base their argument on faith"? What is faith, and what does an argument look like that is based on faith in contrast to one that is based on logic?
In a nutshell, Christian faith is belief in and reliance on Christ for salvation. A person's faith might be supported by evidence and arguments, or it might not be. The definition simply doesn't address that question.
Anyway, it is emphatically not the case that a belief only amounts to faith when it is held without evidence or good reasons. The bible is full of reasoning. See in particular Paul's epistles. You might not think any of the arguments are any good, but that's beside the point. The point is, the bible never says, "Just take my word for it." On the contrary, I can think of a couple of times when it says almost directly the opposite of that.
Religion and serious scientific discovery have always been at odds with each other and the reason boils down to "believe without evidence" or "faith."
The only people I've ever come across who define faith this way are the ones who are setting religion up for a beating. I've never met a religious person who does. So, really, your entire post, which depends on this definition, is pointless.
Science finds every soil barren in which miracles are taken literally and seriously and revelation is considered to provide authentic knowledge of the physical world.
This is pretty obviously false. There are lots of evangelical and Catholic scientists. The ones I know don't throw their hands up in the air and cry "miracle" when they encounter something they don't understand. Leaving open the possibility of miracles doesn't mean that all the regularity and predictability in the world go out the window.
As a theologically conservative Christian, I think the bible provides authentic knowledge about the physical world. I believe science does, too. Many Christians make the mistake of trying to silence or ignore science that they don't like, but that doesn't flow necessarily from confidence in the bible. In fact, it probably often comes from a lack of confidence. As (if I'm not mistaken) Augustine said, "All truth is God's truth." Both science and biblical exegesis provide tentative knowledge. A conflict could indicate something as simple as the need to keep working.
Sorry, I don't know. I didn't keep up with them after I graduated. IIRC, the selling point was that you'd be in a unique position to get a job doing patents or something similar because the technical language wouldn't scare you off. I believe the law school connected with my university even had some kind of special program for engineers.
I think that anyone who wants an engineering degree for the money will be disappointed.
Possibly. You probably aren't going to get filthy rich doing it. But as someone who already replied pointed out, you're going to struggle to make more without either striking out on your own or getting a professional degree of some kind (law, medicine). Engineering is the most highly compensated four-year degree there is. Chemical engineering in particular is near the top. I'm not sure what your spending habits are or how you grew up, but I was tickled pink with my salary as a starting engineer.
That sounds like a lot for being just out of school
That's because to most people, it is a lot of money. Plant operators in a lot of places won't see that much until they are pretty far along in their careers. I'm trying to avoid making accusations, but just what do you think you have a right to expect?
but given the extra effort of obtaining the degree, and the amount of work that is expected from me at my job
I think this is mostly a myth that engineers like to tell themselves. I have no doubt that some degrees are harder than others. But I have a friend who is a graphic designer. It's definitely safe to say that she works harder and longer for less pay than I do (or at least did.. I'm a student again), and the same was true when we were both still in college. Considering the high paying internships, the near-certainty of finding a job after graduation, the respect afforded the profession as a whole, etc, I think engineering students and engineers have it really good in a lot ways. Speaking as an engineer myself, it sounds to me like you're coming perilously close to whining. (I realize you weren't complaining, exactly, just saying, but it also sounds to me like you don't have a very clear appreciation of your situation relative to other people.)
If you have a physics graduate degree you are in academia
My advisor's wife has a PhD in physics, and she works for Boeing. A lot of high tech companies hire physicists to do research for them. I don't know numbers, but it seems to be more common than you think.
By the way, I had been under the impression that engineering degrees were generally for people who wanted to make money (in a normal-ish job) after graduation, while sciences were for people who either wanted to be, or accepted the risk of being in academia for life. Is that not the case?
I have to admit that there is some truth to what you say. I knew a lot of engineering students who seemed to be in it just for the money. But I also knew a few who were pre-med and pre-law. My best friend planned from the beginning to become a professor of engineering (a goal which he is on the verge of accomplishing). I actually didn't know about the money when I started. I just liked chemistry, physics, and math, and somehow (don't remember) got pushed in the direction of chemical engineering. After I got my BS, I worked for a few years at a chemical plant making good money, but now I've taken a pretty severe pay cut to return to school to work on a PhD. So there are exceptions.:)
But, I should also add that it isn't as simple as whether you want to make money and have a normal industrial job. Engineering and science are really two different (but overlapping) things. In spite of being a chemical engineer, I am no longer all that fascinated by pure chemistry. I don't think I could have been a chemistry major. I do like process control, transport phenomena, thermodynamics - the things that chemical engineers study (at least when they are undergraduates). When I was still working, I also enjoyed some of the engineering "practice". So I think there really are people who do it because they like being engineers, not just because they are scientists who sold out.
You're right. My mistake. IT Professionals are engineers, after all. Along with plumbers, medical doctors, garbage collectors, stay-at-home moms, window washers, kindergarten teachers, and practically every other person on earth who might conceivably use scientific knowledge to solve practical problems.
I don't know how these things are done in other countries, but everyone in the US should report to their respective state engineering boards bright and early on Monday morning to receive their licenses. Just to make it clear that we're genuinely sorry for all the confusion and (apparent) feelings of inadequacy, a gold star should be affixed to each one.
Wow, that was liberating! Are there any other terms you'd like to dilute beyond all ordinary usage?
I'm glad you asked. Last semester I took a course in solid state physics from the guy who sort of invented them. (He's a really smart guy, but a terrible teacher.)
I think you've come very close to the real reason a number of Christians have a problem with evolution.
With a lead in like that, it's hard to disagree. There are a couple of billion Christians world-wide by some measures. We could probably find "a number of Christians" who have a problem with evolution because they were attacked by monkeys as children, and they associate evolution with monkeys because of that famous graphic depicting an ape slowly turning into a man.:)
The bible tells us that man was created in God's image, but evolution tells us that we are just the latest in a long line of incremental improvements.
This enters into it, but not in the way that you and the parent seem to think. The parent asked, "If we're created in the image of your god, does he have a tail bone and an appendix?" It's hard to tell whether he's being sarcastic. If not, why stop there? Men and women have some obvious physiological differences. So, which is it? Are men created in the image of God, or are women? Apparently (and amazingly) the parent believes that being created in the image of God means that we bear some physical resemblance to him. Just drawing attention to this premise in his argument should reveal how ridiculous it is, but just in case, I'll spell it out. No group of Christians I'm aware of has ever believed that the Imago Dei has anything to do with our physical bodies.
Having your religion tell you that you aren't special is hard for a lot of people to take; especially people attracted to a religion like Christianity that tells you that you are so special Jesus chose to die for you.
Again, this is a little hard to refute. All over the world, there are undoubtedly sermons being preached about how inherently special we are. But you should take note of a fine but significant distinction. Historically, most Christians have not believed that Jesus died for people because they were special. The song is called Amazing Grace because Newton believed the favor shown to him by God was completely undeserved. He calls himself a wretch, which some modern, mainline denominations have edited out in the belief that traditional Christianity has too negative a view of mankind. If you're shopping around for a worldview that caters to ego, there are much better options than Christianity.
I'd like to suggest to you that the real psychological problem (that is, putting aside the theology and science) that a lot of people have with evolution isn't, as you say, as simple as stubborn, childish insistence that we are better and more important than the apes. The problem is with naturalism. (Many educated Christians believe in "theistic" evolution.) Absent something like the image of God, it's hard for many people to believe that their lives have meaning, that they are capable of apprehending truth, that morality boils down to anything more than personal preferences (which in turn boil down to chemical reactions), etc. In other words, what they are really afraid of is radical nihilism. This is more than just a blow to the ego. It's a question of whether it can be meaningfully said that such a thing as the ego exists.
News Flash: The Federal Government and its Agencies are not companies.
I didn't argue that government agencies should enforce this rule in virtue of their being just like companies.
That's pretty much what they do, hire people tto provide "technically vetted, relevant information" and to set policy.
For this to be an argument, every engineer and scientist would have to be equally knowledgeable about every issue the agency deals with. This is obviously not true. The policy acknowledges this and redirects media inquiries to the people who know the official, final answer. It's stupid, counterproductive, and even dangerous for the media to ask random engineers their opinions about issues they only know a few details about.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it really is growing atheism. While there have always been a few intellectually serious atheists, for most people, atheism is basically a reaction, and they put about the same level of thought into it as those who decide to continue going to church because that's how they grew up. If you spend some time reading popular forums like Slashdot or Digg, what you'll quickly come to realize is that the vast majority of what's said in support of atheism or against any particular religion is unsophisticated and childish. (Or, to be blunt, you would realize that if you weren't in the thick of offering such arguments yourself.) Richard Dawkins and co. make a lot of sense to a lot of people right now because they are expressing the spirit of the age, not because they are producing solid or novel arguments. In fact, their arguments, which are incessantly parroted, are widely regarded by professional, atheistic philosophers as being an embarrasment to the "cause".
"I'd politely suggest..."
Why? What do you think is going on here? I'll take a stab.. There are definitely some situations when under the guise of seeking advice, a person is really looking for any rationale he can find to be relieved of what he knows to be his ethical responsibility. Is there something about this situation that leads you to believe that this or something similar is occuring?
Feelings, I'll politely suggest to you, should not be the final arbiter of ethical decisions. We often feel guilty about or responsible for things we shouldn't, and vice versa. Asking for advice is one way to see our way clear of that. At least, that's the case when the advice is actual reasoning and not just more feelings.
No apologies are necessary. I agree 100%. :)
It is correct that Charles Whitman shot people in Texas.
However:
1) He didn't shoot from a water tower. It was from the observation deck of the University of Texas at Austin administration building.
2) Many students and professors did fight back by firing up at him with hunting rifles.
Happily, your previous point about concealed carry laws is perhaps correct. According to Wikipedia:
"Ramiro Martinez, an officer credited with neutralizing Whitman, later stated in his book that the civilian shooters should be credited, as they made it difficult for Whitman to take careful aim without being hit."
You were doing more or less ok until you got to the energy density part.
According to Wikipedia, liquid hydrogen has a density of 70.8 kg/m^3. That sets a generous upper bound on the density we could hope to achieve in pure hydrogen storage.
Let's assume a density of 700 kg/m^3 for our liquid hydrocarbon. According to Wikipedia (again), gasoline is around 737 kg/m^3. Let's further assume that hydrogen makes up about 15.8% of the weight of our fuel. I arrived at that number by doing a straight average of the percentages for C5 to C12 linear alkanes. That means the part of the density we can attribute to usable hydrogen is around 111 kg/m^3.
So, in terms of effective hydrogen density, liquid hydrocarbons beat the pants off of even pure liquid hydrogen.
I think the gp is right.. under 100 nm is still the most common standard. But, IIRC, a few months ago a seminar speaker in my department casually remarked that many people in the micro- and nanofluidics community were applying the nano label to structures under a micron.
Several folks have pointed out that the headline inappropriately anthropomorphizs what is really just a solution discovered by a genetic algorithm. That might be true. If it is, let's be consistent. People don't lie or tell the truth, either, because our brains are also just a solution discovered by a genetic algorithm.
It's a little difficult to answer that in a way that doesn't seem completely contrived because there are always questions about how to understand new discoveries. Having said that, here are a few things that immediately come to mind:
- Discovery of Jesus' remains
- Evidence that the authors of the New Testament colluded (a letter from Peter to Paul saying, "hee hee, we sure fooled them")
- Evidence that the authors of the NT were duped (documents describing a Roman plot to steal Jesus' body)
- Evidence that the gospels we have now were substantially altered at some point (earlier versions of the gospels in which Jesus was not raised from the dead)
Knowledge can be examined, researched and if found lacking, abandoned or improved upon. Faith is a matter of... well, faith. It's entirely circular.
It seems clear that I'm not using your definition of faith. You're going to have to contend with my definition or admit that your statements are irrelevant to my position.
I replied to someone else who defended your post. I think I addressed what you are saying here, too. You can check it out if you want.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=333155&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=21040435#21041247
My sig "betrays" me, huh? Thanks for the tip. I should have realized that for myself when I added it, I suppose. It would be most unfortunate if it became publicly known that I secretly harbor such shameful views. :)
Dictionaries try to provide the full range of meanings for words. Some people do use the word faith to mean "firm belief in something for which there is no proof." I personally try to avoid using it that way, even in contexts where it's appropriate, because as the gp demonstrated, people are apt to equivocate and apply this defintion everywhere.
When I and I think most other (hopefully) thoughtful Christians use the word faith in a theological sense, we mean more strictly something like the first definition: "belief and trust in and loyalty to God". Faith in this sense does not exclude proof. My 85 year old grandmother trusts God even though she's never troubled herself to study theistic arguments or the historical evidence for the resurrection. Richard Swinburne, who until recently was a professor of philosophy at Oxford, researched those things professionally. They both have faith. One just has good reasons (from a "scientific" point of view) and the other doesn't.
To be a little more precise, what distinguishes faith from plain old knowledge is not that there are good reasons for one but not the other. It's that faith carries over into action. I had a roommate in college who refused to fly. He knew the statistics - that travel by air is safer than travel by car. But in spite of this knowledge, this evidence, he lacked faith in the safety of air travel. He didn't really trust airplanes. To use a biblical example, the demons are said to believe that there is one God (James 2:19). What is lacking is, as the definition puts it, the consequent "trust in and loyalty to God."
Anyway, what I observe more and more lately is a blithe dismissal of religion simply because faith is supposedly belief contrary to evidence. If you want to conclude that the evidence and arguments for some religion aren't very good, that's one thing. At that point you are free to accuse me of believing things without good reasons. But it's circular and unhelpful to conclude that i'm irrational for having faith because faith is by definition irrational. You are assuming what you should be trying to prove.
The problem is that these two groups can never get along because they have no common ground. While the evolutionist will base their argument on logic, the creationist will base their argument on faith. Faith is ignored in the logic argument (since it doesn't affect hard facts) and the other way around.
Have YOU seen such a debate? If so, I'm pretty sure your question-begging definition of the word "faith" completely distorted your understanding of what the creationist participant said and why he said it.
Or maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean. Can you be a little more specific about what you mean when you say that the creationist will "base their argument on faith"? What is faith, and what does an argument look like that is based on faith in contrast to one that is based on logic?
Religious faith is not ever nor can it be supported by evidence or *valid* arguments.
I think before we continue, you should explain what you mean, here.
In a nutshell, Christian faith is belief in and reliance on Christ for salvation. A person's faith might be supported by evidence and arguments, or it might not be. The definition simply doesn't address that question.
Anyway, it is emphatically not the case that a belief only amounts to faith when it is held without evidence or good reasons. The bible is full of reasoning. See in particular Paul's epistles. You might not think any of the arguments are any good, but that's beside the point. The point is, the bible never says, "Just take my word for it." On the contrary, I can think of a couple of times when it says almost directly the opposite of that.
Religion and serious scientific discovery have always been at odds with each other and the reason boils down to "believe without evidence" or "faith."
The only people I've ever come across who define faith this way are the ones who are setting religion up for a beating. I've never met a religious person who does. So, really, your entire post, which depends on this definition, is pointless.
Science finds every soil barren in which miracles are taken literally and seriously and revelation is considered to provide authentic knowledge of the physical world.
This is pretty obviously false. There are lots of evangelical and Catholic scientists. The ones I know don't throw their hands up in the air and cry "miracle" when they encounter something they don't understand. Leaving open the possibility of miracles doesn't mean that all the regularity and predictability in the world go out the window.
As a theologically conservative Christian, I think the bible provides authentic knowledge about the physical world. I believe science does, too. Many Christians make the mistake of trying to silence or ignore science that they don't like, but that doesn't flow necessarily from confidence in the bible. In fact, it probably often comes from a lack of confidence. As (if I'm not mistaken) Augustine said, "All truth is God's truth." Both science and biblical exegesis provide tentative knowledge. A conflict could indicate something as simple as the need to keep working.
Sorry, I don't know. I didn't keep up with them after I graduated. IIRC, the selling point was that you'd be in a unique position to get a job doing patents or something similar because the technical language wouldn't scare you off. I believe the law school connected with my university even had some kind of special program for engineers.
I think that anyone who wants an engineering degree for the money will be disappointed.
Possibly. You probably aren't going to get filthy rich doing it. But as someone who already replied pointed out, you're going to struggle to make more without either striking out on your own or getting a professional degree of some kind (law, medicine). Engineering is the most highly compensated four-year degree there is. Chemical engineering in particular is near the top. I'm not sure what your spending habits are or how you grew up, but I was tickled pink with my salary as a starting engineer.
That sounds like a lot for being just out of school
That's because to most people, it is a lot of money. Plant operators in a lot of places won't see that much until they are pretty far along in their careers. I'm trying to avoid making accusations, but just what do you think you have a right to expect?
but given the extra effort of obtaining the degree, and the amount of work that is expected from me at my job
I think this is mostly a myth that engineers like to tell themselves. I have no doubt that some degrees are harder than others. But I have a friend who is a graphic designer. It's definitely safe to say that she works harder and longer for less pay than I do (or at least did.. I'm a student again), and the same was true when we were both still in college. Considering the high paying internships, the near-certainty of finding a job after graduation, the respect afforded the profession as a whole, etc, I think engineering students and engineers have it really good in a lot ways. Speaking as an engineer myself, it sounds to me like you're coming perilously close to whining. (I realize you weren't complaining, exactly, just saying, but it also sounds to me like you don't have a very clear appreciation of your situation relative to other people.)
If you have a physics graduate degree you are in academia
My advisor's wife has a PhD in physics, and she works for Boeing. A lot of high tech companies hire physicists to do research for them. I don't know numbers, but it seems to be more common than you think.
By the way, I had been under the impression that engineering degrees were generally for people who wanted to make money (in a normal-ish job) after graduation, while sciences were for people who either wanted to be, or accepted the risk of being in academia for life. Is that not the case?
:)
I have to admit that there is some truth to what you say. I knew a lot of engineering students who seemed to be in it just for the money. But I also knew a few who were pre-med and pre-law. My best friend planned from the beginning to become a professor of engineering (a goal which he is on the verge of accomplishing). I actually didn't know about the money when I started. I just liked chemistry, physics, and math, and somehow (don't remember) got pushed in the direction of chemical engineering. After I got my BS, I worked for a few years at a chemical plant making good money, but now I've taken a pretty severe pay cut to return to school to work on a PhD. So there are exceptions.
But, I should also add that it isn't as simple as whether you want to make money and have a normal industrial job. Engineering and science are really two different (but overlapping) things. In spite of being a chemical engineer, I am no longer all that fascinated by pure chemistry. I don't think I could have been a chemistry major. I do like process control, transport phenomena, thermodynamics - the things that chemical engineers study (at least when they are undergraduates). When I was still working, I also enjoyed some of the engineering "practice". So I think there really are people who do it because they like being engineers, not just because they are scientists who sold out.
You're right. My mistake. IT Professionals are engineers, after all. Along with plumbers, medical doctors, garbage collectors, stay-at-home moms, window washers, kindergarten teachers, and practically every other person on earth who might conceivably use scientific knowledge to solve practical problems.
I don't know how these things are done in other countries, but everyone in the US should report to their respective state engineering boards bright and early on Monday morning to receive their licenses. Just to make it clear that we're genuinely sorry for all the confusion and (apparent) feelings of inadequacy, a gold star should be affixed to each one.
Wow, that was liberating! Are there any other terms you'd like to dilute beyond all ordinary usage?
"IT Professionals" are not engineers. No, not even the MCSEs.
I'm glad you asked. Last semester I took a course in solid state physics from the guy who sort of invented them. (He's a really smart guy, but a terrible teacher.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Goodenough
I think you've come very close to the real reason a number of Christians have a problem with evolution.
:)
With a lead in like that, it's hard to disagree. There are a couple of billion Christians world-wide by some measures. We could probably find "a number of Christians" who have a problem with evolution because they were attacked by monkeys as children, and they associate evolution with monkeys because of that famous graphic depicting an ape slowly turning into a man.
The bible tells us that man was created in God's image, but evolution tells us that we are just the latest in a long line of incremental improvements.
This enters into it, but not in the way that you and the parent seem to think. The parent asked, "If we're created in the image of your god, does he have a tail bone and an appendix?" It's hard to tell whether he's being sarcastic. If not, why stop there? Men and women have some obvious physiological differences. So, which is it? Are men created in the image of God, or are women? Apparently (and amazingly) the parent believes that being created in the image of God means that we bear some physical resemblance to him. Just drawing attention to this premise in his argument should reveal how ridiculous it is, but just in case, I'll spell it out. No group of Christians I'm aware of has ever believed that the Imago Dei has anything to do with our physical bodies.
Having your religion tell you that you aren't special is hard for a lot of people to take; especially people attracted to a religion like Christianity that tells you that you are so special Jesus chose to die for you.
Again, this is a little hard to refute. All over the world, there are undoubtedly sermons being preached about how inherently special we are. But you should take note of a fine but significant distinction. Historically, most Christians have not believed that Jesus died for people because they were special. The song is called Amazing Grace because Newton believed the favor shown to him by God was completely undeserved. He calls himself a wretch, which some modern, mainline denominations have edited out in the belief that traditional Christianity has too negative a view of mankind. If you're shopping around for a worldview that caters to ego, there are much better options than Christianity.
I'd like to suggest to you that the real psychological problem (that is, putting aside the theology and science) that a lot of people have with evolution isn't, as you say, as simple as stubborn, childish insistence that we are better and more important than the apes. The problem is with naturalism. (Many educated Christians believe in "theistic" evolution.) Absent something like the image of God, it's hard for many people to believe that their lives have meaning, that they are capable of apprehending truth, that morality boils down to anything more than personal preferences (which in turn boil down to chemical reactions), etc. In other words, what they are really afraid of is radical nihilism. This is more than just a blow to the ego. It's a question of whether it can be meaningfully said that such a thing as the ego exists.
News Flash: The Federal Government and its Agencies are not companies.
I didn't argue that government agencies should enforce this rule in virtue of their being just like companies.
That's pretty much what they do, hire people tto provide "technically vetted, relevant information" and to set policy.
For this to be an argument, every engineer and scientist would have to be equally knowledgeable about every issue the agency deals with. This is obviously not true. The policy acknowledges this and redirects media inquiries to the people who know the official, final answer. It's stupid, counterproductive, and even dangerous for the media to ask random engineers their opinions about issues they only know a few details about.