Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Former NASA engineer touts creationism
Galveston Daily News ^ | August 4, 2007 | Rick Cousins

Posted on 08/04/2007 8:55:32 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger

Tom Henderson is not much of a watchmaker. He shakes a small glass jar containing a tiny metallic gear, a brass bezel, a scarred watch crystal and dozens of other nearly microscopic, shiny objects.

But, no watch. He vigorously rattles the container again. Still, no watch. For Henderson, a retired NASA engineer and creationist speaker, that is the point.

No watchmaker — no watch.

He’s carried the somewhat-out-of favor message of special creation to nine foreign countries in the past several decades because he is convinced that how we believe the world came to be it is important.

His is a radical message that challenges both mainline and some evangelical church assumptions, as well as those of the scientific community as a whole: that the first few chapters of Genesis are just as literal and authoritative as the rest of the Bible.

“Years ago, I traveled to Mexico and spoke on the campus of a left-wing university,” he recalled. “During the Q&A on creationism, some there accused me of being a CIA spy.”

Henderson has never been a spy, of course. He has degrees in math, physics and science education and worked at the Johnson Space Center for 37 years.

Creationism is a step beyond the controversial intelligent design movement that has been involved in text book discussions in various parts of the United States.

“Today’s intelligent design movement has done a really good job of showing the complexity of creation — showing that naturalism cannot be the answer,” he said. “Of course, intelligent design only suggests a creator, but as a Bible-believing Christian, I have come to know and I can appreciate what the creator has done.”

Why should the average person in the pew care? Henderson argues that societal decay, theological erosion and moral bankruptcy will ensue if the evolutionary model is embraced.

“The basis for all Christian doctrines is found in the first 11 chapters of Genesis,” he said. “If it is not true, then what is our basis for morality?”

He also said that the evidences he has found for creationism could remove barriers to faith.

“For some people, evolution is a barrier to the good news of Jesus. They feel if evolution is true, Christianity can’t be —and they are right,” he said. “But if evolution is a myth, then they can take that step to faith.”

Although the creationist view has become unpopular in public schools, mass media and other forums, Henderson said that both the Christian school and home-school movement are generally supportive of it.

The Institute of Creation Research, Bob Jones University and other creationist sources produce text books and other materials designed for these groups. National media recently noted the opening of the 60,000-square-foot Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky.

Creation arguments range from disputes over the validity of radioactive dating, the claim that life is irreducibly complex, the observation that most mutations are unfavorable and the theory that only a finely tuned universe can manage to produce stars.

Now retired from NASA, Henderson coordinates the Web site www.creationsuperlibrary.com from his Friendswood home, where he answers questions from both believers, skeptics and the merely curious.


TOPICS: Religion; Science
KEYWORDS: creationist; crevo; crevolist; dlrhumor; fsmdidit; nasa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-129 next last

1 posted on 08/04/2007 8:55:34 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: gobucks; mikeus_maximus; JudyB1938; isaiah55version11_0; Elsie; LiteKeeper; AndrewC; Havoc; ...


You have been pinged because of your interest regarding news, debate and editorials pertaining to the Creation vs. Evolution debate - from the young-earth creationist perspective.
To to get on or off this list (currently the premier list for creation/evolution news!), freep-mail me:
Add me / Remove me

2 posted on 08/04/2007 8:56:14 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger ("Being normal is not neccessarily a virtue. It rather denotes a lack of courage.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
the complexity of creation — showing that naturalism cannot be the answer

complexity
creation
naturalism
answer

Good that these terms and the others have been nailed down so tightly that a genuine philosophical discourse is finally possible.

3 posted on 08/04/2007 9:02:11 AM PDT by RightWhale (It's Brecht's donkey, not mine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Two Thirds Vote Aye

ping


4 posted on 08/04/2007 9:05:30 AM PDT by lysie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
So, if two former NASA engineers touted atheism, you'd become an atheist?
5 posted on 08/04/2007 9:14:52 AM PDT by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

An engineer endorses Creationism

An engineer designed the I35W bridge which fell into the Mississippi River


6 posted on 08/04/2007 9:18:46 AM PDT by LoneRangerMassachusetts (The only good Mullah is a dead Mullah. The only good Mosque is the one that used to be there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts
An engineer designed the I35W bridge which fell into the Mississippi River

To be fair, that was probably lack of maintainance. However, Rockets crashing because NASA engineers can't tell feet from metres requires some other explanation


7 posted on 08/04/2007 9:27:16 AM PDT by Oztrich Boy (“Serious-minded people have few ideas. People with ideas are never serious.” Paul Valery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
“The basis for all Christian doctrines is found in the first 11 chapters of Genesis,”

And the belief in a Creator is the basis for our 'God given' rights, as defined in the Bill of Rights.

8 posted on 08/04/2007 9:28:39 AM PDT by cowboyway (My heroes have always been Cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
“The basis for all Christian doctrines is found in the first 11 chapters of Genesis,” he said.

This from an NASA engineer with no apparent background in theology. Suddenly the complaints about science getting involved in theology fall silent. Go figure.

9 posted on 08/04/2007 9:38:44 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

AMEN!


10 posted on 08/04/2007 9:53:16 AM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
"Former NASA engineer touts creationism"

In a related development, an evolutionary biologist designs a space probe.

11 posted on 08/04/2007 10:09:46 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
The Institute of Creation Research, Bob Jones University and other creationist sources produce text books and other materials designed for these groups.

They are not producing scientific textbooks. They are producing religious-based texts.

12 posted on 08/04/2007 10:54:51 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grut

No, despite what evolutionists would like you to do (accept evolution on the weight of “the majority of scientists” accepting it — even though about 45% of scientists believe God created, either through evolution or through special creation), peer pressure and someone’s opinion are not reasons to accept anything.


13 posted on 08/04/2007 11:00:04 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger ("Being normal is not neccessarily a virtue. It rather denotes a lack of courage.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts

I don’t think those kinds of jokes are necessarily appropriate right now, do you?


14 posted on 08/04/2007 11:01:56 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger ("Being normal is not neccessarily a virtue. It rather denotes a lack of courage.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Now wait, if a theologian supports creationism, you proclaim that he has no expertise in science and has no grounds for supporting creation. Now this guy has a science background, and you’re saying he shouldn’t dabble in religion because he is not a qualified theologian? Why, by your standards, no one would be qualified in supporting creationism from a scientific perspective!


15 posted on 08/04/2007 11:03:29 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger ("Being normal is not neccessarily a virtue. It rather denotes a lack of courage.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts

Sometimes when people get to retirement they get to do what they are actually good at. Getting to retirement somehow is unfortunately a necessity for most, but then one’s real interest can be engaged in if one remembers what it was.


16 posted on 08/04/2007 11:05:59 AM PDT by RightWhale (It's Brecht's donkey, not mine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
I hate to have to be the one to say this - again - but cellular division and function, photosynthesis, and the water cycle don't depend on evolutionary beliefs to be taught.

When it comes to matters of faith (evolution vs. creation) they simply take a different perspective than the pro-evolution textbooks. The truth is, both evolutionary and creationist science textbooks address matters of belief.
17 posted on 08/04/2007 11:06:23 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger ("Being normal is not neccessarily a virtue. It rather denotes a lack of courage.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
both evolutionary and creationist science textbooks address matters of belief.

The word 'belief' has several meanings. Equating scientific belief or mathematical belief with religious belief is making a meaning stew, which the opposite direction from reasoning things out or doing philosophy.

18 posted on 08/04/2007 11:10:47 AM PDT by RightWhale (It's Brecht's donkey, not mine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

Evolution, no matter how much evidence is interpreted to support it, is still based on unprovable, untestable, unobservable, unrepeatable assumptions about the earth’s past, and as such, constitutes a faith bordering on religious.


19 posted on 08/04/2007 11:12:34 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger ("Being normal is not neccessarily a virtue. It rather denotes a lack of courage.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Evolution, no matter how much evidence is interpreted to support it, is still based on unprovable, untestable, unobservable, unrepeatable assumptions about the earth’s past, and as such, constitutes a faith bordering on religious.

Sorry, that happens not to be the case. No matter how many times you repeat it, its still not true.

But, if you do want to see "unprovable, untestable, unobservable, unrepeatable assumptions" you need only look to religions.

20 posted on 08/04/2007 11:20:07 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
That might be important, but it isn't. Evolution is nothing more than the observation that this species resembles that species in this or that characteristic and they can therefore be placed in a semi-coherent ordering with semi-consistent names on a colorful figure in your biology text, and the same principle can order other sciences such as sociology, psychology, and history.

This is important, although not often noted: now and then someone suggests a mechanism that might have caused the similarities, and later the suggestion is replaced by a better, but that is of zero importance. Only the similarities and the means of classification matter.

21 posted on 08/04/2007 11:29:56 AM PDT by RightWhale (It's Brecht's donkey, not mine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
“The basis for all Christian doctrines is found in the first 11 chapters of Genesis,” he said. “If it is not true, then what is our basis for morality?”

And this is why evolutionists never want to see the theory of evolution denied. No creation=no basis for morality. And that's a fact.

22 posted on 08/04/2007 11:41:39 AM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
You wish it not to be the case because you hold religion itself in contempt and refuse to acknowledge that you hold any belief not rooted in observational fact. I can't stop you from deceiving or deluding yourself, or others, but I and many others recognize the futility of thinking otherwise.

When dealing with questions such as "Where did the world come from?" "Where did we come from" or "Where did life itself come from?" you are dealing with philosophical, as well as scientific questions.

Science can only tell you so much. Science can tell you how a person's body maintains itself. It can give you specific measurements on body heat, respiration and heart rate. It can discern a few of the intricacies of the immune system, and can map out the course of the various different functions in the body.

But the truth is that all these functions may be in working order, maintained by technological aids such as respirators and so forth, and still not govern whether or not someone stays alive. That secret spark, that breath of life, that celestial fire that exists independent from all this, is what makes that difference. Although existing outside your limited sphere of naturalism, is the most important key to life on earth.
23 posted on 08/04/2007 11:42:51 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger ("Being normal is not neccessarily a virtue. It rather denotes a lack of courage.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

When using a more limited definition of evolution, it behooves you to say so. In general, when I refer to evolution, I refer to the Grand Theory of Evolution. On this smaller scale of evolution, simply measuring species and the alleged uniform family tree, the evidence still does not weigh in its favor.


24 posted on 08/04/2007 11:45:18 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger ("Being normal is not neccessarily a virtue. It rather denotes a lack of courage.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
I don’t think those kinds of jokes are necessarily appropriate right now, do you?

Whose joking? I'm not. You chose to post a story where an engineer from NASA, the visonary sort, to bolster an argument for Creationism. Engineers have no special insight into metaphysical and theological arguments.

In spite of all the talk about the I34W probably failing from neglect, enough reports have surfaced where inspectors noticed structural members were bowing. As a structural engineer, I would suspect the such members are undersized by the engineer who caried out the design. Engineers are not infallible when carrying out earthly work. Perhaps, holding up engineers to convince us of Creationism is the real joke.

25 posted on 08/04/2007 12:01:30 PM PDT by LoneRangerMassachusetts (The only good Mullah is a dead Mullah. The only good Mosque is the one that used to be there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

“Touts” Nothing like using a loaded word in the headline.


26 posted on 08/04/2007 12:43:37 PM PDT by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
His is a radical message that challenges both mainline and some evangelical church assumptions

Another lie...there is NO evangelical church that believes in evolution...

27 posted on 08/04/2007 12:52:56 PM PDT by shield (A wise man's heart is at his RIGHT hand;but a fool's heart at his LEFT. Ecc 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
On closer inspection I think one will find that most of the “scientists” supporting darwinism (or for that matter man made global warming) are folks with a financial or philosophical/religious interest in the result. The days of the purely objective “scientist” are over. “Science” is now as much a part of liberalism as the university professor.
28 posted on 08/04/2007 12:57:43 PM PDT by razzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
the Grand Theory of Evolution

Oh, the GToE. Well, that's a different deal.

29 posted on 08/04/2007 1:04:56 PM PDT by RightWhale (It's Brecht's donkey, not mine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
When it comes to matters of faith (evolution vs. creation) they simply take a different perspective than the pro-evolution textbooks. The truth is, both evolutionary and creationist science textbooks address matters of belief.

That's where you're wrong. You are projecting your inadequacies upon others. The theory of evolution, and those who successfully study it, rely upon evidence and reason to reach their results. Just because you rely on faith to comprehend things too complex for you to understand, does not mean that others do so.

Your posting history shows you do not understand the theory of evolution, or the evidence supporting it. Try learning about science before thinking you are qualified to criticize science (and plan on spending at least a couple decades; that's how long it takes).

30 posted on 08/04/2007 1:26:49 PM PDT by ok_now ((Huh?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ok_now
Try learning about science before thinking you are qualified to criticize science (and plan on spending at least a couple decades; that's how long it takes).

You mean a visit to Answers in Genesis and staying at a Holiday Inn Express isn't enough?

31 posted on 08/04/2007 1:30:20 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: shield

Um...I wouldn’t be so sure...


32 posted on 08/04/2007 2:00:58 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger ("Being normal is not neccessarily a virtue. It rather denotes a lack of courage.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts
My gosh, man, I assumed you weren't going to be so insensitive and tactless as to use the recent tragedy as an example. Your argument is exceedingly poor anyway, but to add bad taste is even worse.
Engineers have no special insight into metaphysical and theological arguments.
I have to tell you, I am quite tickled by this new tack that is being taken. For years, the words of creationists have been discounted by Darwinists because they lacked scientific credentials. Now that I highlight a highly-credentialed individual, you argue that he has no basis for referencing theological matters, because he is a scientist!
Engineers are not infallible when carrying out earthly work. Perhaps, holding up engineers to convince us of Creationism is the real joke.
By merit of that argument, any expert in any field is unqualified to offer an opinion on anything if it can be proven that any other person that shares his specialty has made a gross error at some point in the past. Indelibly absurd, my friend.
33 posted on 08/04/2007 2:24:49 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger ("Being normal is not neccessarily a virtue. It rather denotes a lack of courage.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts; DaveLoneRanger
An engineer designed the I35W bridge which fell into the Mississippi River

Yeah, so what is your point? You use a hammer not a drinking glass to drive nails. And drydocks exist for a purpose.

It was not the failure of the I35W bridge designer.

34 posted on 08/04/2007 2:45:39 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
I have to tell you, I am quite tickled by this new tack that is being taken. For years, the words of creationists have been discounted by Darwinists because they lacked scientific credentials. Now that I highlight a highly-credentialed individual, you argue that he has no basis for referencing theological matters, because he is a scientist!

From you laughing emoticon, I can tell you are not shocked by the I35W example. And, from the paragraph above, I can tell you don't listen. I did not say your NASA engineer could not speak about Creationism. He simply has no metaphysical authority on the topic because he is an engineer. He will have to derive his argument from metaphysics or theology. When I attended engineering school, not one word of God was mentioned. It's not in the curriculum. Also, as an engineer, he is not a scientist as you call him. Engineers learn science but they practice engineering. Learning science does not make a scientist.

You have got to grow up and separate faith from science. Faith can have many positive outcomes in peoples lives but you are spinning your wheels attempting to demonstrate any proof of God, Creationism, or whatever. Proving the opposite is equally futile. This was one of Martin Luther's reasons for leaving the Catholic Church. He got tired of Medieval Catholic clergy trying to use Aristotelean logic to prove God's existence. Martin Luther understood you have to believe by faith alone.

35 posted on 08/04/2007 2:58:26 PM PDT by LoneRangerMassachusetts (The only good Mullah is a dead Mullah. The only good Mosque is the one that used to be there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
It was not the failure of the I35W bridge designer.

Maybe it was an act of God.

36 posted on 08/04/2007 3:03:42 PM PDT by LoneRangerMassachusetts (The only good Mullah is a dead Mullah. The only good Mosque is the one that used to be there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts
Maybe it was an act of God

No, an earthquake would fit that bill. It was a human failure, but not of the designer.

37 posted on 08/04/2007 3:06:02 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: razzle
On closer inspection I think one will find that most of the “scientists” supporting darwinism (or for that matter man made global warming) are folks with a financial or philosophical/religious interest in the result. The days of the purely objective “scientist” are over. “Science” is now as much a part of liberalism as the university professor.

Yes, it is just a grand conspiracy. I hear that the Freemasons and the Illuminati are also involved.

38 posted on 08/04/2007 3:15:08 PM PDT by burzum (None shall see me, though my battlecry may give me away -Minsc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
I have to tell you, I am quite tickled by this new tack that is being taken. For years, the words of creationists have been discounted by Darwinists because they lacked scientific credentials. Now that I highlight a highly-credentialed individual, you argue that he has no basis for referencing theological matters, because he is a scientist!

Are you kidding me? He is an engineer, not a scientist. If you are neither of those you obviously would not know the difference. Sometimes there is overlap. But not in this case. I'll give you a hint why this is a problem: a engineer who works with physical systems has no training in biology. I thought that was obvious, but apparently it is not.

Oh wait, I was wrong. I distinctly remember in my partial differential equations class where we stopped solving spherical Bessel equations and all took a break to watch cell mitosis in the biology lab. Or was I daydreaming?

39 posted on 08/04/2007 3:21:47 PM PDT by burzum (None shall see me, though my battlecry may give me away -Minsc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts
re: An engineer endorses Creationism An engineer designed the I35W bridge which fell into the Mississippi River

So that proves that Creationism and/or Intelligent Design cannot have any possible chance of being viable theories???????

40 posted on 08/04/2007 4:04:47 PM PDT by Turret Gunner A20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
re: #17 When it comes to matters of faith (evolution vs. creation) they simply take a different perspective than the pro-evolution textbooks. The truth is, both evolutionary and creationist science textbooks address matters of belief.

Man, you will never sell that to the staunch, diehard, exclude-all-other-possiblilities evolutionists.

41 posted on 08/04/2007 4:16:27 PM PDT by Turret Gunner A20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Turret Gunner A20
So that proves that Creationism and/or Intelligent Design cannot have any possible chance of being viable theories???????

Creationism and ID are religious beliefs. They rely on scripture and dogma, not observation, testing and disproof, and theory building.

If you want an example, look at the supposed global flood about 4350 years ago. The scientific evidence is overwhelmingly against this idea, but believers don't care; for most of them the global flood is not subject to scientific disproof (i.e., it is a religious belief).

42 posted on 08/04/2007 4:24:00 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Thanks for posting that. It is quite telling that more and more engineers are rejecting the mathematically-impossible idea of evolution. I’m glad that more people realize that evolution is a symptom of our society’s moral decay.


43 posted on 08/04/2007 4:57:17 PM PDT by LH8993 (evolution, phony science, global warming, coulter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Now wait, if a theologian supports creationism, you proclaim that he has no expertise in science and has no grounds for supporting creation.

Show me where I have ever made such a proclamation

Now this guy has a science background, and you’re saying he shouldn’t dabble in religion because he is not a qualified theologian? Why, by your standards, no one would be qualified in supporting creationism from a scientific perspective!

There's a log more than talking about scientific evidence and arguments in support of cretionism going on there. We're talking about declaring the first 11 books of Genesis the basis for all of Christianity, and the only basis for morality there is.

44 posted on 08/04/2007 4:59:54 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: LH8993
I’m glad that more people realize that evolution is a symptom of our society’s moral decay.

Evolution, paleontology, biology, genetics, and the rest are branches of science. They are characterized by adherence to the scientific method.

Put the blame for your perceived "moral decay" elsewhere.

45 posted on 08/04/2007 5:33:29 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
And this is why evolutionists never want to see the theory of evolution denied. No creation=no basis for morality.

For the life of me, your line of thought escapes me. I am deeply Christian, and have found profound basis for morality in the context of our worldy evolution and survival, in paralell with our spiritual evolution toward grace. We adapt to the rules and thrive; those unable to adapt perish. The rules are God's rules, and there's nothing we can do to change them.

FRIend, truth is what the bible tells us to seek; it sets us free. God works His wonders any way He pleases, and some truths may surprise and offend us. Tough beans. Get over it. You read motivations into a template you have for "evolutionists" that is wildly misguided. Why does evolution shake the faith of so many? *sigh*

46 posted on 08/04/2007 6:14:31 PM PDT by Finny (Only Saps Buy Global Warming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
If you want an example, look at the supposed global flood about 4350 years ago. The scientific evidence is overwhelmingly against this idea, but believers don't care; for most of them the global flood is not subject to scientific disproof (i.e., it is a religious belief).

Ironically, in many of these cases these foolish folks put "evoltionists" into the same "bad science" category as they do global warming Nazis. Yet if the earth is as young as they say it is, then certainly evidence would support man-caused global warming. We're screwed.

They're following something false in the name of Christianity ... *red flags* ...

47 posted on 08/04/2007 6:25:54 PM PDT by Finny (Only Saps Buy Global Warming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: burzum; DaveLoneRanger
Are you kidding me? He is an engineer, not a scientist. If you are neither of those you obviously would not know the difference. Sometimes there is overlap. But not in this case. I'll give you a hint why this is a problem: a engineer who works with physical systems has no training in biology. I thought that was obvious, but apparently it is not.

Oh??

http://web.mit.edu/cheme/graduate/phdscd.html



The Doctor of Science and the Doctor of Philosophy in Chemical Engineering are identical degree programs. Degree candidates may choose to be called a "doctor of philosophy" or a "doctor of science".

The degree requires that you complete:



The core curriculum is:



The departmental biology requirement is fulfilled by completing an undergraduate subject equivalent to MIT 7.01x, either at MIT or at your undergraduate institution. Examples of minor programs for some recent doctoral students include applied mathematics, control theory, physical, organic or analytical chemistry, mechanical structure, power systems, process metallurgy, nuclear engineering, management, economics, music, ancient history and philosophy. The doctoral qualifying examinations are offered in January and May, and are taken by most students after one or two terms in residence.

The following individual is not the subject of the article that this thread discusses

I also do not infer such. It is just "coincidental".

Personal Profile
HomeDirectoryFaculty → Thomas C. Henderson
Thomas C. Henderson

Thomas C. Henderson

Adjunct Professor
Professor of Computer Science
IEEE Fellow
Utah Governor's Medal for Science and Technology 2000
BS, Math Louisiana State University 1973
PhD, CS University of Texas, Austin 1979



Phone: 801-581-3601
Office: 3450 MEB<

Research

autonomous systems, sensor networks, large-scale simulation


From the MIT MECHANICAL ENGINEERING Department

http://web.mit.edu/catalogue/degre.engin.mecha.shtml



Area 6: Bioengineering. Engineering analysis, design, and synthesis are needed to understand biological processes and to harness them successfully for human use. Mechanical forces and structures play an essential role in governing the function of cells, tissues, and organs. Our research emphasizes integration of molecular-to-systems–level approaches to probe the behavior of natural biological systems; and to design and build new systems. At the smallest scale, proteins, enzymes, and biological motors are being studied using instrumentation that combines optical tweezers, single-molecule fluorescence, and pulsed spectroscopy. Single molecules are manipulated within complex systems using nanoscale antennas, opening new avenues for therapy and diagnosis. Computational and experimental models are used to describe the networks of molecules in the cytoskeleton, and how they couple with the extracellular matrix to respond to external forces. Emphasis is also placed on creating new physiological models using tools of nano- and microfabrication as well as creation of new biomaterials. Applications include understanding, diagnosing, and treating diseases ranging from atherosclerosis to osteoarthritis to liver failure; new tools for drug discovery and drug development; and tissue-engineered scaffolds and devices for in vivo regeneration of tissues and organs. Work also includes design and fabrication of new devices and tools for rehabilitation of stroke victims, and for robotic surgery. We offer many elective subjects as well as a bioengineering track in Course 2-A.



Area 7: Nano/Micro Science and Technology. The miniaturization of devices and systems of ever-increasing complexity has been a fascinating and productive engineering endeavor during the past few decades. Near and long term, this trend will be amplified as physical understanding of the nano world expands, and widespread commercial demand drives the application of manufacturing to micro- and nanosystems. Micro- and nanotechnology can have tremendous impact on a wide range of mechanical systems. Examples include microelectromechanical system (MEMS) devices and systems that are already deployed as automobile airbag sensors and for drug delivery; stronger and lighter nanostructured materials now used in automobiles; and nanostructured energy conversion devices that significantly improve the efficiency of macroscale energy systems. Research in this area cuts across mechanical engineering and other disciplines. Examples include sensors and actuators; fluidics, heat transfer, and energy conversion at the micro- and nanoscales; optical and biological micro- and nano-electromechanical systems (MEMS and NEMS); engineered 3-D nanomaterials; ultraprecision engineering; and the application of optics in measurement, sensing, and systems design. Our faculty members have developed and are developing new educational materials in micro and nano science and technology. Students interested in micro/nano technology are encouraged to explore the Course 2-A nano track.



In order to prepare the mechanical engineers of the future, the department has developed undergraduate and graduate educational programs of the depth and breadth necessary to address the diverse and rapidly changing technological challenges that society faces. Our educational programs combine the rigor of academic study with the excitement and creativity inherent to innovation and research.

Barry Commoner was disdainful of engineering and engineers.

48 posted on 08/04/2007 6:47:51 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Finny
Ironically, in many of these cases these foolish folks put "evoltionists" into the same "bad science" category as they do global warming Nazis. Yet if the earth is as young as they say it is, then certainly evidence would support man-caused global warming. We're screwed.

That's a good point.

The global warming man-is-responsible hysteria is beginning to see significant counter evidence published, not just in the technical journals (where it has always been) but also in some of the mainstream outlets.

But your point of logic regarding a young earth is good.

The same logic also applies to Hominid evolution. I have seen a creationist website host an article stating that all of the various Homo species (Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, etc.) evolved from modern man after the global flood. The logical consequence of that idea is that evolution took place just as evolutionists have claimed, but about 200 times as quickly and in reverse! (Whoops!)

Another "unintended consequence" of a young earth is the radioactive elements. For them to have reached their present state of decay in 6,000 years rather than 4.5 billion years would have released enough heat in that short of a time to have cooked the earth. (We're stewed.)

49 posted on 08/04/2007 6:53:03 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Creationism and ID are religious beliefs.

Who, besides you intolerant evolutionists, says that Intelligent Design is a religous belief?

50 posted on 08/04/2007 7:54:45 PM PDT by Turret Gunner A20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-129 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson