If There is no such thing as "Intelligent Design".

[Elijah John]

If there is no such thing as "Intelligent Design", why do intelligent designers (scientists, inventors and engineers) look to Nature for inspiration?

Disclaimer: Please don't make this a thread about atheistic Evolution vs (six day) Biblical Creation, there are other possibilities and combinations to consider.

Some examples from a National Geographic article:

The science of biomimetics including,

-More efficient streamlining based on the structure of the boxfish. (Mercedes study)
-The thorny devil lizard, in effect drinking water through it's scales, actually whisking water via channels between it's scales to it's mouth. (for the irrigation of arid enviroments)
-burs inspired the design of velcro
-the waterproof properties of the lotus leaf is self-cleaning and has inspired "Lotosan" paint, said to better resist water and stains.
-sharkskin scales inhibit the growth and attachment of barnicles and is being studied for ways to treat the hull surfaces of navy ships to make them cleaner and faster.

And of course, the streamline shape of the Mako Shark in inspiring the Corvette. .

Of course there are many other examples of human invention being inspired by Natural (Intelligent?) design.

Granted, this is not proof of a creative Deity, (evidence, perhaps) but for debate, isn't it ironic that some very intelligent and creative people deny design in Nature while at the same time looking to it for inspiration?

And though National Geographic did not address Theistic or Deistic implications, are these examples evidence of at least a Deistic interpretation of the natural world?

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 75 by Donray]

It is not secondary. The universe must be created from something the BB explains the something, your god creations explains nothing. Big difference.

The argument is that something must have been responsible for the Big Bang and that something is referred to as the object of Infinite Density.

In that, how the OID come into existence can only be logically explained as being created by an eternal being obviously able to do so.

Except an infinite being isn't actually logical. I'll explain that below.

As it relates to the BB, current theory is that something existed the moment before the BB. Either that something came from nothing, or it came from another something. Science doesn't know enough to say for sure.

I personally don't hold with the Big Crunch scenario, for basically the same reasons as I find infinite gods irrational, which again I explain below.

As for a finite universe, this makes a lot more sense. Cause and effect is related to the existence of time (spacetime to be more precise). Without spacetime, there is no reason to think there is a cause and effect situation in existence. The beginning of the universe can happen without a previous effect. It can be an uncaused cause. Given that the whole universe equals nothing, there is no reason to think that it related to anything else, be it a previous universe or a god being.

You are the one saying nothing existed but your god.

It is not my GOD. It is the logical idea of an an eternal being, intelligent, creative and able.

Here's why it is irrational. An always existing god creature would have to exist infinitely before it reached the moment in its existence when it could have created the universe. We all know obviously that there is no middle to infinity however, so there is no way an infinite creature could ever reach the moment in it's existence where it got around to creating the universe.

Infinite existence is a self-defeating concept.

[Danmark]

If there is no such thing as "Intelligent Design", why do intelligent designers (scientists, inventors and engineers) look to Nature for inspiration?

EJ, you know I respect you, but this particular effort of yours is without merit.
Nature, just like science, follows certain principles. It would be foolish for scientists, inventors, innovators to ignore successful designs whether they exist in nature or are created by man. The Mako shark is fast because its shape offers less resistance to friction in water. How did this come to be? Because thru millions of years of evolution, speed was recognized as an asset by predator species in that slower species were not as effective as predators. Why wouldn't people look to proven shapes while developing new ones?

One need not propose intelligent, purposive design to recognize a design's efficacy.

[Cinderella Man]

The real question here being proposed is not why engineers would deny that ID exists while copying biological mechanisms in mechanical inventions, but rather can those existing biological mechanisms be the result of something with no will or volition, a mere accident of nature's development. The answer is of course they can. Vulcanized rubber was a complete accident and yet it has served enormous value to humans. Microwave ovens were equally an accidental discovery yet are extremely useful to us. Are we to also assume that some "Intelligent Designer" created Vulcanization and microwave ovens and just waited around for humans to discover them?

If one really believes in Intelligent Design, then you really have to ask why most creatures breath and eat from the same orifice, making the likelihood that we will choke to death on our food a real problem.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 83 by Cinderella Man]

Or why this 'intelligent designer' designed so many creatures that cause agonizing, disfiguring disease, yet call this designer 'good.' The more I reflect on such things, the more I fail to comprehend how anyone can hold such an absurd view that claims a good god designed all of nature.

The standard religious reply is that everything was perfect until Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. Then, this god created pestilence and death just to 'teach them a lesson.' That argument, in addition to being preposterous, suggests God is the most evil of all imagined creatures. How could a good god design multiple sclerosis and bubonic plague for the billions that 'inherited' Adam's sin? These notions beggar credulity and even if believed prove how wicked this supposed 'god' is.