Biomimicry News

Biomimicry: Nature had 3.8 billion years “to come up with ideas”

Spread the love

In “Biomimicry: Beaks on trains and flipper-like turbines” (BBC News, 27 ) October 2011), Katia Moskvitch reports

Since the dawn of time, nature has been working hard, engineering everyone and everything to the highest standards on Earth.

You can say that if you are talking about what “nature” does. You can even talk about it as an apparent intelligent agent:

“It is important to look at nature – after all, it has had 3.8 billion years to come up with ideas,” says Janine Benyus, a natural history writer who coined the term “biomimicry” in 1998.

Also,

“Nature possesses infinite patience in developing and perfecting processes, including those to produce energy such photosynthesis, and by mimicking and adapting [them] we can develop technology that is useful, low cost and aligns to our fragile environment,” says Marc Thomas, CEO of Dyesol Inc., the company that makes the cells.

But if anyone suggests that there is an intelligence behind nature, suddenly the mood changes to baseless claims about “junk DNA”, fronted with no regard for actual findings, or just plain stupid (and stupider) remarks.

Of course, the difference between industries using biomimicry and Darwinists is that industries need to produce something of value. That entails recognizing realities, however distorted.

3 Replies to “Biomimicry: Nature had 3.8 billion years “to come up with ideas”

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    semi OT: The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness – David L. Abel – August 2011
    Summary: “The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness” states that inanimate physicodynamics is completely inadequate to generate, or even explain, the mathematical nature of physical interactions (the purely formal laws of physics and chemistry). The Law further states that physicodynamic factors cannot cause formal processes and procedures leading to sophisticated function. Chance and necessity alone cannot steer, program or optimize algorithmic/computational success to provide desired non-trivial utility.
    http://www.scitopics.com/The_L.....eness.html

  2. 2
    tjguy says:

    Very true. You can talk about design, engineering, programming, developing, perfecting, etc. as long as it is Nature doing it and not God.

    They don’t realize though that nature is inanimate and can do none of what they claim it does. Impersonal matter cannot under any circumstance design, engineer, program, develop, perfect, etc. anything!

    It is telling though that they can’t talk about life without using these terms that so clearly imply intelligence and purpose. This fact clearly points out their wilful blindness and double standard.

    Here is a great article on natural selection and why it can’t design or develop anything! http://www.icr.org/article/nat.....eal-world/

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Here is quite a collection of molecular animations:

    MolecularMovies.org
    http://www.molecularmovies.com/showcase/

Leave a Reply