Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is Reader’s Digest semantically conceding the field to intelligent design?

arroba Email
File:Morpho menelaus didius Male Dos MHNT.jpg
Morpho produces colours without dyes. Research into methods improved computer screens.

The April 2011 edition of Reader’s Digest features an article by Shaun Pett called “Intelligent Design” (p. 82). We are told, “A new field of research uses nature to solve everyday human problems.”:

The term “biomimicry,” popularized by American natural-sciences writer Janine Benyus in the late 1990s, refers to innovations that take their inspiration from flora and fauna. Biomimicry advocates argue that with 3.8 billion years of research and development, evolution has already solved many of the challenges humans now encounter.

Question: Why do human enterprises in this area need guidance that immediately beggars the resources of natural selection, if nature doesn’t?

When RD calls it both “intelligent design” and “evolution,” are the editors semantically conceding intelligent design’s view of evolution?: That it involves many factors and that these factors are guided by intelligence, not “natural selection acting on random mutation”?

Did Wallace win in the end?

(Note: That article is not online, but see this one at Earth News. Also “Biomimetics is on a roll,” from Creation-Evolution headlines.)

I'm starting to read Benyus' book "Biomimicry" and it's pretty interesting so far. The Christian Science Monitor, in reviewing the book, called it 'an enlightened alternative to Darwinism.' Barb

Leave a Reply