Intelligent design. Climate change. These are just two of the topics where we engineers often fall short.
I recently had a lengthy conversation with a fellow EE about so-called intelligent design. The basic idea of intelligent design is that life is so complicated that it could not have evolved—it must have been purposefully created. It's an attractive idea, but one that is fundamentally unscientific.
To look at just one point against intelligent design, consider that scientific ideas offer a basis for forming testable hypothesis. For example, evolutionary biologists hypothesized the existence of genes decades before their precise mechanism was known—Darwin wrote his seminal work 80 years before the workings of DNA were known.
In contrast, intelligent design offers no insights into how traits are inherited. It offers no reason to look for genes, let alone to look for genetic similarities between organisms.
The problem with intelligent design is not that it leads to an incorrect hypothesis about DNA. The problem is that intelligent design is that it inevitably boils down to "God did it"—an idea that offers no basis for any hypotheses at all. Thus, intelligent design is inherently a non-scientific idea.
This is not to say that science has disproven the existence of God. In fact, this is not a question that science can answer. Any God worth believing in would have a nature that science could neither measure nor explain. Similarly, while science may someday answer the question of how life began (a feat it has yet to achieve) it will never give us a purpose for our existence.
I have a similar complaint with those who question the science of global warming—a group that sadly includes many engineers. I tire of claims that climate change science is too new and uncertain to justify any action. Our friend Joseph Fourier—famous among engineers for the Fourier transform—discovered the greenhouse effect in 1824, and Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius published a paper on the relationship between C02 and atmospheric temperatures way back in 1896. Scientists have since refined their models, but the basic science has only confirmed the theories of these great minds. Those who question the idea of global warming do so for reasons of personal convenience or political expediency—not because there is any real debate about the basic science. Update: It was wrong for me to ascribe motives to anyone. I should let the science speak for itself.
I make these points because we engineers have a special duty to promote and protect scientific ideas. We have the specialized training needed to understand these ideas, and the social standing to command the public's respect. Don't let your voice be silent on these important debates!
Update
My friend and fellow editor Rich Pell writes: "This reminds me of an editorial I did on the same subject in Electronic Products Magazine a couple of years ago. I received many dozens of replies from the engineering-oriented audience - most expressing strong disagreement. I responded to every one, and in many cases ended up engaging in some lively - but cordial - discussion with the respondents.
A couple of months later I followed up with another editorial, where I responded to some of the main arguments made against my original editorial. Of course this spawned a further round of responses."
