The Impact of Worldview on the Engineering Design Process

David W. Shaw

Department of Engineering
Geneva College, Department of Engineering

3200 College Avenue

Beaver Falls, PA 15010

Introduction

As Christians working within the discipline of engineering design we are routinely faced with questions which have answers strongly influenced by our worldview. What do I mean by worldview, and what are some examples of these kinds of questions?

A simplified definition of worldview is the set of presuppositions through which all of life is filtered. This worldview may be one which is held consciously or held by ""default"". Whether one knows or admits it or not, each person has a worldview. It is the set of beliefs called upon when facing day-to-day questions or decisions.

The questions faced in the day-to-day life of a design engineer which must be informed by one’’s worldview range from decisions about what job to accept to decisions between potential solutions to a design problem. We may choose to ignore the deeper issues behind these decisions and just ""do our job"", but the renewed mind (Romans 12:1,2) requires more than this.

The design engineer is required to draw on knowledge of history, economics, creativity theory, ethics, management, and even some engineering science and engineering design. Thus, it can be an overwhelming task to find the origins of dominant and accepted approaches to problem solving. The engineer is often ""forced"" by lack of time for reflection and research to conclude that the present, dominant approach to engineering design is compatible with a Christian worldview.

A major goal of this paper is to present examples of the worldview(s) which often impact engineering design and creativity and compare and contrast these with a Christian worldview. This should provide a useful starting point for the student or professional who recognizes that there are important questions to ask, but does not know where to begin. Some of the critical questions for the engineering designer (and also for others in design-related fields) are

  1. What does God call us to do in His world?
  2. What overarching standards set the agenda for the helping professions?
  3. What standards govern our work as engineering designers?
  4. Who is the ""customer"" when doing design work?
  5. By what yardstick do we measure success in engineering design? (What is the ""best solution""?)

DOES WORLDVIEW MATTER?

Before investing time and energy in the consideration of the questions of worldview and presuppositions, it is worth considering what difference this will or should make in my life. Hasker, in ""Faith-Learning Integration: An Overview"", presents three strategies for faith-learning integration: the compatibilist, the tranformationist, and the reconstructionist strategies. The compatibilist strategy is to recognize and exhibit the compatibility which already exists, using the presuppositions of the discipline with absolute comfort. The transformationist strategy is to transform basically valid disciplinary assumptions in its weak points. The transformationist would seek to transform the discipline at some basic, although not radical, level. The reconstructionist finds the existing discipline beyond any hope of transformation, and so constructs a new ""Christian"" discipline. While not accepting Hasker’’s description as being fully consistent with a scriptural view of post-fall man, his outline does at least provide a basis for asking critical questions about one’’s discipline. If one seriously considers the motivations for actions of individuals and not only the results, then questions of worldview become some of the most important.

THE FIRST QUESTION – WHAT DOES GOD CALL US TO DO IN HIS WORLD?

Ask the average first-year engineering student in any college why they are pursuing a degree in engineering and you are likely to hear at least one of the following responses.

Anyone who has served as an academic advisor has heard these answers, along with some as unsatisfying as a shrug of the shoulders, and the occasional serious, well-researched response. What is it that leads to these responses, and are they appropriate for those who are to have the mind of Christ? (I Cor. 2:16) As a starting point, let us examine some of the prevailing assumptions about the need for engineers and the motivation to work in engineering design.

To begin this discussion, an operating definition of engineering design is necessary. There are many definitions in the design literature, but for now I will list a pair of definitions which capture most elements of the process.

"Engineering design is the systematic, intelligent generation and evaluation of specifications for artifacts whose form and function achieve stated objectives and satisfy specified constraints." ([Dym and Levitt, as cited in Dym])

"A creative act of selecting, combining, converting, constraining, modifying, manipulating and shaping ideas, scientific facts, and physical laws into a useful product or process." ([Harrisberger, p. 2)]

These two definitions point out the many uniquely human abilities required for engineering design. These include true creativity, intelligence, ability to communicate symbolically, concern with physical laws and science, and the production of artifacts.

The obvious, though often unstated, prevailing assumption among engineers is that engineering design is something worth doing. Otherwise we would not be involved in it or seeking to advance the state of the art.

Engineers have traditionally had a service orientation. This is evident even in the history of engineering societies. The first engineers to form professional societies were civil engineers ([see Florman, p. 51)], those concerned with public works for the public good. This is also reflected in the Codes of Ethics, which place public service as a higher priority than service to employer.

The satisfaction resulting from such service is not due to public recognition, but is the satisfaction of a job well done. If desiring public recognition, the engineers of this century would have become physicians or lawyers, but they chose to work on the seemingly small pieces of large projects without great public acclaim. A famous quote from Herbert Hoover illustrates this engineering view:

Engineering is a great profession. There is a fascination of watching a figment of the imagination emerge, through the aid of science, to a plan on paper. Then it moves to realization in stone or metal or energy. Then it brings jobs home to men. Then it elevates the standards of living and adds to the comfort of life. That is the engineer’’s high privilege.

The great liability of the engineer, compared to men of other professions, is that his works are out in the open where all can see them. His acts, step by step, are in hard substance. He cannot bury his mistakes in the grave, like the doctors. He cannot argue them into thin air or blame the judge, like the lawyers. He cannot, like the architects, cover his failures with trees and vines. He cannot, like politicians, screen his shortcomings by blaming his opponents and hope the people will forget. The engineer simply cannot deny he did it. If his works do not work, he is damned...

On the other hand, unlike the doctor, his is not a life among the weak. Unlike the soldier, destruction is not his purpose. Unlike the lawyer, quarrels are not his daily bread. To the engineer falls the job of clothing the bare bones of science with life, comfort, and hope. No doubt, as the years go by, the people forget which engineer did it, even if they ever knew. Or some politician puts his name on it. Or they credit it to some promoter who used other peoples’’ money. But the engineer looks back at the unending stream of good.

Engineering is thus seen as an important human function which serves our fellow man. Is this general viewpoint in accord with the teachings of the Bible? I would claim that this view of engineering service is compatible with, but inferior to, a biblically-based view.

That God intended for man to do more than just maintain a static garden is clearly seen. In Gen. 2:15 (KJV) man’’s pre-fall job description is given. ""And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it."" This was not the job of keeping things just as he found them; he was to dress the garden. Even in the pre-fall condition, with no toiling against thorns or losing battles with Japanese beetles, man had a task of developing God’’s creation as a servant of God. This task continues after the fall, but now includes the ongoing battle with the effects of the fall on all creation. This battle with the effects of the fall will continue, but it is not futile.

Jeremiah 33:9-18, Zechariah 1:16,17, Isaiah 49:8, and Acts 3:21 show God’’s promise to ""restore the fortunes of the land"". Note the direct reference of Acts 3:21 to the prior promises. The promise of the King in Jeremiah. 33 is being fulfilled as Christ is ascended and sitting at the right hand of God the Father (Acts 2:33). God’’s people are privileged participants as the blessings of the covenant overflow to the nations. The engineer, as a doer, plays a special role in the outworking of God’’ plan in history. The engineer ""evokes the wisdom of God"" [Gidley] as he or she works for the good of mankind. As Gidley points out, ""Good engineering makes real provision against real evils, bringing by God’’s common grace longer life, ease of toil, and pleasurable recreation.""

In Philosophy, Science and the Sovereignty of God, V. Poythress provides an introduction to philosophy of science, and constructs detailed terminology to aid in the statement of problems and provide a framework for investigation. In this effort to organize our thinking he identifies the official functions (having to do with office) of man (p. 35ff) as Prophetic, Kingly, and Priestly, and the ordinantial functions (having to do with the creation ordinances of the Sabbath, of labor, and of family) as Sabbatical, Laboratorial, and Social. He then interprets human personal functions on a matrix formed by these. This is just the beginning of his definition of structure, but this most basic element is extremely helpful in viewing our human activities. A summary form of his table of personal functions is found in Table 1, with a few examples filled in to illustrate its utility.

Table 1. Human Personal Functions (Poythress)

Prophetic

Kingly

Priestly

Sabbatical

Pray, preach

Worship

Bless, curse

Social

Greet, tell

Serve, rule

Punish, buy

Laboratorial

Remember, think, plan

Build, weigh

Expect, appropriate

The doing of technology has mainly laboratorial and kingly/priestly aspects, but obviously there are individual engineering tasks which may cross these lines. The important point for the moment is that the doing of technology does fulfill the Christian’’s duties in terms of God’’s creation ordinances and in terms of office.

God calls people to be workers, as those created in His image. Humans can imitate God’’s works in daily life. Sherman and Hendricks address the ideas of work and calling in Your Work Matters to God. On pages 81-83 they illustrate from Genesis how man was created to be a worker, and a coworker with God. They point out that the Bible views work as a gift.

(Eccl 5:18-19 NIV) Then I realized that it is good and proper for a man to eat and drink, and to find satisfaction in his toilsome labor under the sun during the few days of life God has given him--for this is his lot. (19) Moreover, when God gives any man wealth and possessions, and enables him to enjoy them, to accept his lot and be happy in his work--this is a gift of God. (Eccl 5:18-19 NIV)

The Bible also teaches us to use our gifts and abilities in service to God and our fellow man.

(Matt 22:37-40 NIV) Jesus replied: ""‘‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’’ (38) This is the first and greatest commandment. (39) And the second is like it: ‘‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’’ (40) All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."" (Matt 22:37-40 NIV)

Love for my neighbor involves doing all within my power for his good. This includes the development and refining of life-improving and life-saving devices and technologies. Our service to God involves all of life, as is shown clearly in the following passage, which is set in the context of the work and duty of slaves to masters, but certainly applies also to vocations chosen voluntarily.

(Col 3:23-24 NIV) Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, (24) since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. (Col 3:23-24 NIV)

We are to work at the jobs we are placed in by God as service to God.

Sherman and Hendricks provide a practical framework for the goal of work in Chapter 6 of their book. Their five main points are

  1. 1. Through work we serve people.
  2. 2. Through work we meet our own needs.
  3. 3. Through work we meet our family’’s needs.
  4. 4. Through work we earn money to give to others.
  5. 5. Through work we love God.
  6. Although I would probably list these in a different order, they do address the breadth of the reasons we should work.

    It is evident that engineering design is one way of serving God and fellow man in stewardship of the gifts God has given us. Thinking carefully about worldview can lead to a more satisfying career, knowing that my efforts are not futile, but are making use of the gifts God has given to all of mankind, and the special skills and abilities he has given particular individuals.

    Recognition of the richness of God’’s definition of appropriate human work can also lead one to witness to others of God’’s gracious provision in this part of life. We have an opportunity to tell others the end goal of our work, even when things are not going perfectly.

    STANDARDS FOR THE HELPING PROFESSIONS (AND ENGINEERING DESIGN IN PARTICULAR)

    The prevailing worldview (at least among engineers) and the biblical model already presented both see engineering design as a task which meets human needs, so it is appropriate to include engineering among the ""helping professions"". Are there standards which help set the agenda for these professions (For example, what efforts should have the highest priority), and what are these standards?

    The engineering profession’’s most universally recognized set of standards is presented in the Engineering Code of Ethics (see Appendix for the Fundamental Canons). The Code of Ethics gives a commonly-held moral code, but is subject to revision to meet changes in the society (this is discussed at some length in the introduction to an ASME tape series on ethics intended to be presented to students). The moral code is therefore something externally imposed and not tied to any absolutes other than man’’s absolute right to self-determination (essentially secular humanism).

    Florman, p. 95, "...engineering ethics is not, or should not be a medium for expressing one’’s personal opinions about life. " "Engineers do not have the responsibility, much less the right, to establish goals for society." (Florman, p. 95)

    Florman’’s ""ethics"" is that which leads to care, diligence, and conscientiousness, which will, according to Florman, result in good. ""Practically speaking, people who start out to do a good job and people who start out to do good often end up in the same vicinity."" (p. 106)

    He feels that ""healthy competition"" (see p. 113) coupled with political decisions carried out in a republic will lead toward good solutions. ""An abstract devotion to ‘‘the good of humanity’’ is no substitute for devotion to real human beings"". He feels that working on a dynamic team will produce the healthy environment required to move toward a goal which will usually be honorable.

    We see then a pragmatist approach to defining good and bad, right and wrong, but also a respect for the present laws of the land. Although not believing in true absolutes, his relativism is at least temporarily stable and founded in the opinion of the perceived majority. This leads the engineer operating in this society, with laws still somewhat connected to the intent of the founders of our country, to act in apparently ""good"" ways, but not necessarily out of proper motivation.

    From a practical, everyday point of view, many of Florman’’s observations do help the engineer to maintain a proper focus. For example, Florman, p. 99, draws the parallel of judicial restraint for the practice of engineers.

    "It is not the engineer’’s job, in his or her daily work, to second-guess prevailing standards of safety or pollution control, nor to challenge democratically established public policy." (emphasis mine)

    The practicing engineer, once satisfied that he or she is working in a reasonably well governed society, should practice within the constraints of the law. If changes must be made in the law, one should act through the proper channels, and not initiate designs which violate accepted standards as a form of protest.

    Florman states clearly that he does not consider the code of ethics to be part of a worldview, but only a moral code. He sees this code as externally imposed rather than an internal code based on a consistent system of beliefs.

    Others (Moriarty, Jones) do bring worldview issues more directly to bear on moral and ethical issues. According to Moriarty, engineering design work has content and context, and the recognition of context can help engineers fulfill their responsibilities in a balanced manner.

    "The economics, ethics, and politics of engineering, coupled with environmental concerns, encompassed by and understood within a philosophical and historical framework -- all this, bound up in a complex web of interactions, seems essential for a full discourse on the context of engineering design."

    What Moriarty is saying is that our worldview does affect what we do and how we do it. He points out that we can often function without thinking explicitly about worldview issues, but they are still there, and must eventually be addressed. This context ties the engineer to the society he or she serves.

    Jones is getting at the same sort of idea when he outlines the levels of designing (p. 31) as Community, Systems, Products, and Components.

    The design engineer operates within a social context. He or she cannot radically change society, but he can challenge society, and present new ways of doing things, from banking to telephone communications. This social context is what makes engineering challenging and also rewarding. Technology is not carried out in a vacuum, and it is not what controls or predetermines social movement, as Ellul would have us believe.

    The views of Jones and Moriarty are not widely known or held, but they do provide a starting point for discussing worldview in the context of engineering design.

    As we look for a biblical basis for standards, several important guiding principles are seen. The designer, whether acknowledging it or not, is responsible for his or her actions and is held accountable by God (Romans 2:15). The Creator God has established unchanging moral laws, summarized in the Ten Commandments, and summarized yet further in Matthew 22.

    (Matt 22:37-40 NIV) Jesus replied: ""‘‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’’ (38) This is the first and greatest commandment. (39) And the second is like it: ‘‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’’ (40) All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."" (Matt 22:37-40 NIV)

    God has even given clear examples of the application of moral law to everyday situations. A good example is the positive application of the law (almost a building code) regarding safe building practices:

    (Deut 22:8 NIV) When you build a new house, make a parapet around your roof so that you may not bring the guilt of bloodshed on your house if someone falls from the roof. (Deut 22:8 NIV)

    Other examples abound, but the basic approach is that of following God’’s ""Love Commands"" (the ten commandments and all that flows from them).

    Another important biblical principle which helps set standards for our work is that we are to work as unto the Lord (Col. 3:23). There are many aspects to this, but several points can be clearly illustrated.

    One aspect is how we work. God has given each of us gifts, to be used in our calling to serve Him and our neighbor.

    (Neh 4:6 NIV) So we rebuilt the wall till all of it reached half its height, for the people worked with all their heart. (Neh 4:6 NIV)

    God’’s people are often charged to work with all their heart, or praised for doing so, or chided for sloth. The Christian engineer should use all of his or her abilities, and maintain and develop those abilities, so that he or she may serve God well.

    Another part of this is working humbly, giving credit to God and fellow workers as appropriate.

    T (Prov 15:33 NIV) The fear of the LORD teaches a man wisdom, and humility comes before honor. (Prov 15:33 NIV)

    (Prov 11:2 NIV) When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom. (Prov 11:2 NIV)

    (Prov 22:4 NIV) HHumility and the fear of the LORD bring wealth and honor and life. (Prov 22:4 NIV)

    (Phil 2:3 NIV) Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. (Phil 2:3 NIV)

    Recognize, as many of those who have been blessed by God have clearly reminded us, that the ability, the wealth, the resources, all come from God, and we are but His stewards.

    A good example of a Christian who continues to work humbly, depending on God for his strength, is Wayne Alderson. In the book Stronger Than Steel, R.C. Sproul chronicles a portion of Alderson’’s life and work spent in bringing workers and management together. In all of this, Alderson did not depend on technique or publicity, but on the Lord.

    As with the previous question, the generally accepted view and a Christian worldview do not lead to radically different practical outcomes, but the view not informed by God’’s word is somewhat deficient, lacking richness, clarity, and consistency. Rather than a ""quasi-equilibrium"" system of morals (which are currently based on Judeo-Christian standards) and an assumption that man (and evolutionary process) is basically good, the biblical worldview sees God as the source of all good and man as fallen. The potential outcomes of a worldview not informed by the Bible could be disastrous, if not moderated by God’’s hand.

    The Christian should have a greater dedication to upholding standards, not out of self-interest, but as an act of service to God.

    CONCLUSIONS

    One can extend this search for disciplinary presuppositions to many other aspects of engineering design and find that the prevailing worldview of engineering designers does not often lead to radically different engineering practice when compared to that resulting from a Christian worldview. This raises some important questions of its own. How is it that Christian and non-Christian engineers can agree that engineering is an important endeavor, that we do need moral standards, and why do they reach similar final designs when several presuppositions about the nature of the world and the nature of man are quite different?

    Why is it that non-Christians are capable of doing ""good"" work?

    (James 1:17) Every good gift ..... comes down from the Father... (James 1:17)

    (Proverbs 22:29 NIV) Do you see a man skilled in his work? He will serve before kings; he will not serve before obscure men. (Proverbs 22:29 NIV)

    For an act to be good in the sight of God, it must ""externally conform to the demands of the law"" and must proceed from correct motivations [Sproul, Ethics, p. 32]. Man sees only the outward, so these outwardly good acts are not the sole domain of the regenerate. If man is radically fallen (totally depraved) as the scriptures clearly teach, we are left with the question, Why do we see any good in human life? Berkouwer summarizes the historic answers which lead to the concept of ""Common Grace"" in Ch. 5 of Man: The Image of God. He summarizes Calvin’’s teaching on common grace as follows:

    And therefore it was possible for Calvin also to portray corruption in radical terms. Man was indeed endowed with outstanding gifts, but these have been so corrupted by sin that ""no trace of purity is left,"" and we must thus seek all righteousness outside ourselves (Commentary on Acts 15:9). But it does not follow from such statements (and their number could be multiplied) that Calvin fails to appreciate the gifts of God to man... There is no reason to wonder what sort of contact the godless, wholly alienated from God, have with the Spirit; for though the Spirit of sanctification dwells only in the believer, still God achieves and moves all things through the power of His Spirit, in accord with the uniqueness of each thing, given it by Him in the law of creation.(Berkouwer, (p. 150])).

    It is important to not confuse common grace with the concept of the image of God, which we sinners often do as we try to make it easier to look at ourselves in the mirror. Berkouwer, on pp. 127ff stresses the complete disobedience and enmity brought about by the fall, as does Rushdoony in Ch. 7 of By What Standard?. Van Til also points this out in In Defense of the Faith in the Chapter on common grace.

    All men have not only the ability to know but actually know the truth. This is so even in the case of those who do not know all the truth that they would need to know in order to be saved. All men know that God exists and is their judge. Secondly, all men have become sinners through Adam’’s fall. All men therefore suppress the truth that they know.... Common grace is not a gift of God whereby his own challenge to repentance unto men who have sinned against him is temporarily being blurred. (p. 174)

    Men know (Romans 1) yet they are not capable of doing the good on their own.

    Thus, God grants common grace to restrain man in his efforts to complete the effects of the fall, and to work out His plan in history. Man, left to his own, would greatly accelerate the outworking of the effects of the fall.

    Or, as North states it, in down-to-earth terms [Dominion and Common Grace]

    ""Law does not save men’’s souls, but partial obedience to it does save their bodies and their culture."" (p. 173)

    It is important to note that these good works are possible NOT because man has some ""spark of divinity"" (a common misinterpretation of what the image of God is) but because of God’’s common grace, manifest toward sinful mankind. As North so clearly puts it ""Common grace is not common ground"" (p. 191).

    We see then that it is not surprising that God would make it possible for engineering design to produce results which are useful to people. But we must also recognize the ultimate end of all work done out of improper motivations. Looking at Hasker’’s three strategies (compatibilist, transformationist, and reconstructionist), it appears that these approaches miss some important distinctions which are of practical importance. It seems that Christians must in some sense always be reconstructionists, since truly good works can only be performed out of proper motivation, and any false presupposition corrupts motivation. On the other hand, common grace tells us that humans will do useful and apparently good things, even if not properly motivated. Poythress, for example, points out that the results of ""pseudo-study"" may be genuine (p. 138), but the flawed approach to God’’s Creation is still flawed. The Christian must be prepared to put these results to use, and this use looks like that of the ""compatibilist"", BUT the Christian should probably not use such terminology without great caution, since the word compatible may imply acceptance of more than we are really prepared to accept. I thus reject these classifications as not consistent with a Biblical view of post-fall man.

    A better approach is presented in seed form by Brian Walsh in ""Worldviews, Modernity, and the Task of Christian College Education"". He drives home the point that worldviews are pretheoretical, that those presuppositions are items of faith. We cannot change the dominant presuppositions in our field, but we can speak prophetically and ""erect signposts"". This involves teaching students ""not only...to think Christianly, but in dynamic relation to that thinking, to live Christianly.""

    We are, then, interested in ""transformation"", but that transformation comes about through ""reconstructed"" individuals, working in legitimate ""compatible"" endeavors made possible by God’’s common grace. Truly Christian engineering design does exist, but is carried out in service to all men by Christian engineers involved in their society.

    How, then, am I to use what I learn by studying the dominant presuppositions in my field? I see at least three important applications.

  7. I can use what is learned to bring my personal practice of engineering design into closer conformity to God’’s will.
  8. I can learn by studying failures in engineering design, not only by considering the failures in process and results, but by probing the presuppositions which may have led to failures in process.
  9. I can use my own considerations of worldview as opportunities for discussion with others. This can lead to improvements in my own practice of engineering and my walk with God. It can also help others to look, maybe for the first time, at their own pretheoretical assumptions.

A major goal of this study is to encourage each reader to take the time to think about his or her own presuppositions and the source of those presuppositions. By these few examples I hope to have stimulated each person to occasionally step out of the routine practice of engineering design and to consider the origins of day-to-day practice.

REFERENCES

ASME, Ethics in Action (Video), 1992, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York.

Berkouwer, G.C., Man: The Image of God, 1962, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Berkouwer, G.C., The Providence of God, 1952, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Dym, C.L., Engineering Design: A Synthesis of Views, 1994, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Ellul, J., The Technological Society, 1964, Knopf, New York.

Florman, S.C., The Civilized Engineer, 1987, St. Martin’’s Press, New York.

Gidley, J.S., ""Engineering and the Wisdom of God"", New Horizons in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, vol 11, no. 2, February 1990, p. 4.

Harrisberger, L., Engineersmanship... The Doing of Engineering Design, 1982, Brooks/Cole Engineering Division, Monterey, California.

Hasker, W., ""Faith-Learning Integration: An Overview"", Christian Scholar’’s Review, XXI:3, March, 1992, p. 234-248.

Hoover, H., The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover: Years of Adventure, 1951, Herbert Hoover Foundation.

Jones, J.C., Design Methods: Seeds of Human Futures, 1981, John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Moriarty, G., ""Engineering Design: Content and Context"", Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 83, no. 2, April 1994, pp. 135-140.

North, G., Dominion and Common Grace: The Biblical Basis of Progress, 1987, Institute for Christian Economics, Tyler, Texas.

Poythress, V.S., Philosophy, Science and the Sovereignty of God, 1976, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., New Jersey.

Rushdoony, R.J., By What Standard? An Analysis of the Philosophy of Cornelius Van Til, 1974, Thoburn Press, Fairfax, Virginia.

Sherman, D. and Hendricks, W., Your Work Matters to God, 1987, NavPress, Colorado Springs.

Sproul, R.C., Stronger Than Steel, 1980, Harper and Row, San Francisco.

Sproul, R.C., Ethics and the Christian, 1983, Tyndale House, Wheaton, Illinois.

Van Til, C., Common Grace and the Gospel, 1972, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Nutley, New Jersey.

Walsh, B.J., ""Worldviews, Modernity and the Task of Christian College Education"", Faculty Dialogue, Issue 18, Fall, 1992, pp. 13-34.

 

Appendix

FUNDAMENTAL CANONS OF ENGINEERING ETHICS

THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES

Engineers uphold and advance the integrity, honor and dignity of the engineering profession by:

I. using their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human welfare;

II. being honest and impartial, and serving with fidelity the public, their employers and clients; and

III. Striving to increase the competence and prestige of the engineering profession.

THE FUNDAMENTAL CANONS

1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties.

2. Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of their competence.

3. Engineers shall continue their professional development throughout their careers and shall provide opportunities for the professional development of those engineers under their supervision.

4. Engineers shall act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees, and shall avoid conflicts of interest.

5. Engineers shall build their professional reputation on the merit of their services and shall not compete unfairly with others.

6. Engineers shall associate only with reputable persons or organizations.

7. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.

 


Return to CEEC99 Proceedings Table of Contents
Return to CEEC Home Page


© 2000, Christian Engineering Education Conference
This page was written and is maintained by Steve VanderLeest.
It was last modified on 13 Mar 2000.