8 Replies to “Bio-inspired design

  1. 1
    Tiax says:

    Would we say that rivers inspired the invention of aqueducts? If so, does that mean that rivers are designed?

    I don’t see the connection between inspiring design and being designed. Perhaps you could argue that inspiring design is proof of specification – why would anyone invent something that’s not specified? Even so, everyone agrees that specification isn’t enough to infer design.

    Really, I think if something inspires design, we can conclude that that thing is useful. That’s about it, though.

  2. 2
    jacktone says:

    According to the last page of the slide show, all of the systems we see in Nature are the results of a vast trial and error process. I guess Nature is like Thomas Edison, it hasn’t failed, it’s just found 10,000(?!) ways that don’t work!

    To answer the question though, obviously the key word here is “system”. I find it hard to think of anything that is a “system” that isn’t designed. Isn’t it really some sort of oxymoron – “undesigned system” ?

  3. 3
    Mats says:

    Sorry Bill, but those religiously motivated questions are not allowed in Science®!

  4. 4
    Mats says:

    By the way, we don’t seem to be able to comment on the post “Natural Selection does it again”

    Problem fixed. Comment away!–Crandaddy

  5. 5
    steveh says:

    How about:

    Lawn sprinkler. Designed to water a garden in much the same way that the natural water cycle might otherwise. As far as I can tell, the water cycle although arguably irreducibly complex, could have arisen by natural materialist means.

    Log Effect Gas Fire: Designed to recreate the warmth and visual appearance of burning wood. TTBOMK a designer is not necessary to make wood burn.

    Plasma Ball. Designed to imitate lightning , which although awesome, lacks specificity (as I have recently learned here), and therefore need not have been designed.

    “Precious thing” / snow globe. Designed to conjure up a magical blizzardy experience.

  6. 6
    HodorH says:


    Of course all those things are designed, as demonstrated by the Law of Cosmic Fine Tuning. While each individual event may not have been planned, the principals were set into place at the creation, much as Richard Dawkins was not planned but humanity was inevitable as revealed in certain historical/moral/spiritual texts.

  7. 7
    Smidlee says:

    I notice on page 12 it concluded that “Nature did it”. So instead saying “God did it” you simply replace the word “God” with either “nature” or “evolution” then amazingly the statement is called science. So here we go again with idolatry where “nature” is it’s own (and man’s) creator. Almost all the ancient gods were “nature” gods and this article gives one hint why man like to make nature his creator; Because he believe eventually he will become smarter than his creator.

  8. 8
    glennj says:

    Just read “Hi all, from Denyse O’Leary” and wished I could add my welcome, but comments there are closed for some reason after 14 innocuous posts. SO, of course, I add it here. Welcome Denyse. I’ve enjoyed your own blog.

    I’ve said before on UD, that reading UD is much like taking a graduate level seminar course. The students come in, take their seats. The professor arrives and provides the topic of the day. The students spout off. The professor listens. The class ends. Only AFTER departing the class do I realize how much the professor-with very little comment…with hardly more than the choice of the topic–made me think, made me look at the world slightly differently, helped remove the blinders I didn’t know I was wearing.

    It’s a great blog. I’ve loved it from Day 1. Welcome Denyse.

Leave a Reply