Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site leadsv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!petsd!pesnta!amd!amdcad!cae780!leadsv!morse
From: morse@leadsv.UUCP (Terry Morse)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Sorry Dan, but I don't have my barfbags handy
Message-ID: <529@leadsv.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Jul-85 16:10:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: leadsv.529
Posted: Fri Jul 19 16:10:07 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Jul-85 02:32:33 EDT
References: <244@ihnet.UUCP> <485@ihu1m.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Lockheed, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 21
Summary: are engineers not scientists???

In article <485@ihu1m.UUCP>, jho@ihu1m.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) writes:
> It is quite clear that many leading creationists are engineers
> rather than scientists.  These engineers  understand  the mathematics
> of science which does not seem to conflict with their religion.  Yet, they
> are unable to comprehend the underlying scientific theory which they perceive
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> to contradict their religion. 
> -- 

Do I detect a bit of scientific snoberry?  As an engineer, I take offense
at the idea that I might be unable to comprehend scientific theory.
Theory is all an engineer gets in his curriculum: theory of elasticity,
theory of compressible flow, boundary layer theory, etc.

I charge that I know as much about my specialty as any "scientist".  I just
earn more money :-)
-- 

Terry Morse  (408)743-1487

{ seismo!nsc!cae780 } | { sun!sunncal } leadsv!morse