Engineering Is Not Science Steven H. VanderLeest Engineering is not merely the application of science. While science is certainly an important factor in the engineering design of technology, subsuming engineering and technology under the umbrella of science obscures important differences. Following a structure suggested by Paul Forman, the two are distinguished, exploring the primacy of science in the modern era and the primacy of technology (and engineering) in the postmodern era. However, placing either practice above the other does not do justice to both: a symbiotic or interplay model is more appropriate. Recognizing the distinctive yet interdependent activities of science and engineering produces better insights. This interplay also suggests some benefits related to the exercise of Christian faith: providing multiple modes of worship, avoiding idolizing “-isms,” and understanding our roles as stewards. T he act of categorizing illumi- nates certain characteristics but obscures others. Many academic disciplines can be divided into “lump- ers,” combining similar things into larger categories, and “splitters,” dividing dis- similar things into smaller subsets. Categorization is a helpful mental model, but either strategy carried to extreme loses its value. Lumping everything in a unified category is too bland to make useful inferences; splitting everything into singular categories is too frag- mented to provide helpful insights. More than a simple cognitive aid, cataloging represents political power. Insensitive men have lumped both gen- ders under the label “mankind.” Disre- spectful whites split off persons of color into a separate category of blacks (or more derogatory terms) in order to deny rights and even to deny personhood. Categories and labels become terms of respect and justice—or the lack thereof. This article examines the importance of the categories and the names of science and engineering. This article’s structure follows Paul Forman’s division of history in the year 1980. He tips the scales to favor science prior to, and technology after, that date. Liberation of our conception of tech- nology from the functional depend- ence and cultural inferiority implied by “applied science” was a principal constitutive program of the discipline of the history of technology … When the historians of technology first began to revolt against “the linear model” and its view of science as originative source, as unmoved mover, of technological progress, they were setting themselves against prejudices deeply entrenched in modern culture … In the epochal global transformation from moder- nity to post-modernity that has been taking place in recent decades, tech- nology has acquired, beginning about 1980, the cultural primacy that sci- ence had been enjoying for two cen- turies world-wide, and in the West for two millennia. 1 20 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Article Steven H. VanderLeest holds a MSEE from Michigan Technological University and a PhD from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is a professor of engineering at Calvin College, Vice President of Research and Development at DornerWorks, Ltd. (an embedded systems engineering company specializing in safety-critical electronics and software for avionics and medical instruments), and a partner at squishLogic LLC (an iPhone apps development company). VanderLeest has publications spanning technical areas such as I/O performance measurement and safety-critical design methodologies, technology-philosophy topics such as technological justice, and technology education topics such as design methods and entrepreneurship. VanderLeest was the general chair for the most recent national Christian Engineering Education Conference. He is an officer of the Liberal Education Division of the American Society of Engineering Education. He is also a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Steven H. VanderLeest