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?

[Divine Insight]

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

Because the scientists, inventors, and engineers are intelligent enough to recognize that since we live in a world ruled by physics and natural evolution we can learn much by looking at how the world naturally evolved.

This explains everything, so I don't see how this would lead anyone to think that the universe itself was intelligent designed. That is simply not necessary.

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?

No, it's not "evidence" for a creative Deity. It's just evidence of natural evolution both physical and biological.

And no it's not "ironic" that creative people pay attention to how the physics of the universe works when designing something new. In fact, it would be foolish not to.

[Elijah John]

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

Because the scientists, inventors, and engineers are intelligent enough to recognize that since we live in a world ruled by physics and natural evolution we can learn much by looking at how the world naturally evolved.

This explains everything, so I don't see how this would lead anyone to think that the universe itself was intelligent designed. That is simply not necessary.

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?

No, it's not "evidence" for a creative Deity. It's just evidence of natural evolution both physical and biological.

And no it's not "ironic" that creative people pay attention to how the physics of the universe works when designing something new. In fact, it would be foolish not to.

Not necessary, but do you see the irony of the situation?

[Divine Insight]

Not necessary, but do you see the irony of the situation?

Irony - a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result.

No, I don't see any irony here at all. But I do recognize that the concept of irony is dependent upon what one "expects".

Apparently you "expect" that the universe must have been intelligently designed if it provides us with any clues at all on how to design things.

I don't hold that "expectation" so I see no irony.

The fact that the universe evolved from natural processes is more than sufficient to explain why looking at natural processes is informative. No intelligent designer required.

So there is no "irony" here for me at all.

[Neatras]

Is it ironic that human designs often incorporate features that follow the path of least resistance? Electrons live (metaphorically) for this rule, and always abide by it.

If it's not ironic, then neither is the scenario you put forward.

[Tcg]

[quote="Elijah John"]

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?

It is neither proof nor evidence of a "creative Deity".

It isn't ironic in any way. Those who look to "Nature" for inspiration are wise enough to understand that the trial and error results of millions of years of evolution are exceedingly more valuable than anything they as a very short lived individual could ever experience.

[Furrowed Brow]

...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?

Is it ironic those intelligent inventors copy dumb blind nature? Maybe it is. But to be ironic the inventor inspired by nature has to be more intelligent than nature. It would not be ironic if there was intelligent design. Recognising the irony is to recognise the blind dumbness of nature. When Richard Dawkins (or was it his publisher) chose the title for his book The Blind Watchmaker there is a teasing irony in that title.

And I think the OP hits on a point. Advocates of intelligent design fail the irony test. There really can be complicated intricate well adapted stuff like an eyeball without a designer able to see what they were doing. That really is kinda funny .

Evolutionary theory and science is sometimes accused of sucking the joy and purpose out of life. Those kinds of complaints don't share our sense of humour.

[OnceConvinced]

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

Where would you expect them to look?

As a writer we are taught that the best thing to write about is things that we know best. That's where we should get our inspiration. So it's not surprising that scientists, inventors and engineers would look to nature as that is what they are all very familiar with.

If something in nature works nicely, why not use it as inspiration? No need to reinvent the wheel.

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?

Life is full of ironies. There is certainly many ironies in religious beliefs.

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?

There is much about this world that is mind boggling and impressive, but I see no need whatsoever to put it down to magical super powered beings.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

There is no doubt that evolution is an intelligent process.

The evidence is in the evident.

Does this imply that something intelligent set it all in motion? I think so. Others do not.

It only matters to me that I think so. It makes no difference to me if others do not think so.

It does amuse me that the only thing in a materialistic view of the universe which requires magical thinking, is the big bang itself.
After that, it is all just a matter of blind mindless luck that the wonderful examples of biological intelligence formed specifically as they have done.

[Divine Insight]

It does amuse me that the only thing in a materialistic view of the universe which requires magical thinking, is the big bang itself.
After that, it is all just a matter of blind mindless luck that the wonderful examples of biological intelligence formed specifically as they have done.

The problem is that this line of thinking is actually quite flawed. It only appears to make sense on the surface because we traditionally think of "magic" as being something performed by a magician, therefore having an "explanation".

The magician being the explanation.

However, this ideology doesn't actually work in the case of a creator God. It only works in the case of earthly "magicians" who are actually "illusionists". And therefore the explanation given by the magician is indeed that the whole thing was nothing more than a faked illusion.

That's the explanation that a magician provides.

In the case of a God this doesn't work. After all if the explanation is that a magician is required to explain the existence of anything that appears to be intelligent, then that explanation would need to apply to the God himself. Thus to complete the explanation we need yet another magician who created God, etc. Ad infinitive.

It becomes a never-ending regression, not an explanation.

If you want "Real Magic" that doesn't require an illusionist (i.e. a magician to perform it). Then the Big Bang qualifies as "Real Magic" and there's no need to postulate any previous magician who conducted the illusion.

Besides, since when is a world where life evolved to prey upon itself considered to be "Intelligently Designed".

If our universe qualifies as anything it qualifies for having been "Stupidly Designed".