This interview was originally published at reasons.org.
Does the Bible mention engineers? What does the Bible say about science and engineering? And how do Christian values inform the practice of engineering?
Dr. David Winyard, associate professor of engineering at Grace, reveals surprising insights in this conversation with Jeff Zweerink, senior research scholar for Reasons to Believe. Bringing experience with secular and Christian colleges with engineering programs, Winyard and Zweerink bridge the gap between ancient scripture and contemporary engineering by exploring the creativity required in engineering, delving into the need for a moral framework to guide technological advancements, and emphasizing the importance of integrating faith and ethics into engineering practices.
JZ: Today we’re going to answer the question, “What does the Bible say about science and engineers? I was interested when we discussed how you made the point that the Bible actually talks about engineers. You know, the Bible doesn’t say a lot about people who study science, but it talks a lot about how the world works. So what’s the motivation for saying the Bible talks about engineers?
DW: It is interesting. Science and faith is such a big matter, but I’m trained as an engineer. I noticed reading through the Bible there are places where things are made, such as artifacts for the Tabernacle and Temple, but I still didn’t see engineering anywhere until I came across a King James version of the Bible in a PDF file and I discovered that the word “engine” appears in the King James Bible in two places.
It’s used in both cases to describe the kinds of machines used to throw things, also known as catapults, and 2 Chronicles 26 is a very interesting discussion of these machines, these engines, and the “cunning” people that developed them.
JZ: Give us a bit of context. What’s going on in 2 Chronicles where it’s talking about this, and then what does it say about them?
DW: Sure, 2 Chronicles 26 is very interesting because it’s talking about King Uzziah, who was one of the good kings, one of the best kings, and he did a lot of things to help his kingdom prosper and be secure. At the end of the opening section it talks about the people that developed these machines to defend the city. For military defensive purposes, they develop these things, and the term “cunning” is just the perfect adjective for an engineer. Engineers are sneaky people. We figure out how to do things that would not occur to other people.
JZ: Sneaky and cunning imply a bit of mischievousness, a little bit negative, but I don’t think that’s accurate in your assessment.
DW: Well, there are mixed connotations. Engineers will sometimes do things that that would not occur to other people. Sometimes, they’re accepted, and other times, they’re not. I sometimes describe engineers as people who would break the very laws of physics if they only knew how. Their determination to achieve their goals and meet requirements is central to their work lives, and anything that can get them there is pretty much what they’re willing to do. So sometimes other people, such as lawyers and accountants, must hold them back. We refer to those people as “bean counters.”
JZ: That’s interesting. I’m trained as a scientist, but I’ve had a foray into teaching engineering, and what was interesting about the two different fields — and this is a gross oversimplification, but it was interesting — in my science classes, we would go through and work on a problem, and if we didn’t know how to solve it, we would take a new problem and work it. In my foray into engineering teaching, it was like, we’re going to solve building a bridge this way, and then we’re going to solve building a bridge this way. We’re going to start building a bridge this way. It kind of makes sense because you want your engineers to make sure the bridge works, whereas if we’re off in a calculation and we find it several years later, nobody’s died, cars haven’t crashed, so there is that difference about it. But your description of saying engineers see a problem to solve and they’ll use any sort of tools to solve it is a really interesting way of looking at that. What’s your assessment?
DW: Engineers care about whether or not something works. We’re less interested in truth, which would be the focus of a scientist. However, the optimization question arises, and finding an optimum design is very challenging. We have examples, say, of the Brooklyn Bridge, where we have these massive masonry towers holding the bridge up, and they cost an enormous amount, not only in dollars but in human lives. Then they start building another suspension bridge and another one, and pretty soon, they’ve taken so much cost out of things that the bridges start to fall down. The Tacoma Narrows Bridge is a classic example. Henry Petroski wrote a book called “To Engineer Is Human.” In it, he describes this cycle of building something for the first time, where performance is the only thing that matters, and economics comes into this over time. How can we meet performance requirements at minimum cost? And sooner or later, somebody goes too far, and the device fails, or the bridge falls down.