Intelligent Design

Design principles in spider silk

Spread the love

Spider silk has been an active area for biomimetics research for several years. Spinoff companies have been launched in anticipation of commercial gains. However, despite the enthusiasm and commitment of research staff, the prizes are still elusive. Whilst the main goal is to produce fibres that are as strong and as flexible as spider silk, there are other aspects of the natural material that have attracted the interest of researchers. One of these concerns the ability of webs to be a site for dew collection.

“When Lei Jiang first observed the phenomenon, he was intrigued. “How does that happen?” he wondered. After all, he says, “if you took a human hair, water would not stick to it like that”. His initial curiosity led to an almost five-year-long study. The findings could have implications for the design of materials for water collection and for the efficiency of chemical reactions.”

Not only do webs attract dew, the droplets are able to hang stably on the silk fibres. This suggests the presence of a microstructural mechanism. All polymeric fibres have a microstructure and spider silk is no exception. SEM images reveal a series of amorphous regions (called puffs) and crystalline regions (called joints). The nanofibrils are highly hydrophilic: enhancing wettability and favourable for condensing dew. The puffs have a very open structure and are semi-transparent in images. However, when water starts to condense, the puffs shrink – first to “opaque bumps” and then to “spindle-knots”. As they shrink, tiny water droplets coalesce to form larger drops with movement from joints to spindle-knots.

“Further work revealed that movement of the droplets towards the knots is directed by two forces acting together: the force generated by a gradient of surface energy on the fibrils and the one produced by the spindle shape of the knots. “This is quite different from other reported surfaces, on which drops are driven just by individual forces,” says Jiang.”

[. . .]
Is there an ID perspective on this? Wherever researchers recognise “design principles” in the natural world, the answer is, of course, ‘yes’. The presumption with ID is that design features imply functionality, whether or not we know the details. Dew gathering is a unique and remarkable feature of spider silk simply because other fibres do not display such behaviour. The authors comment:

“We observed such directional water collection behaviour only with wetted silk fibres (that is, wet-rebuilt silk) from the cribellate spider Uloborus walckenaerius; in contrast, silkworm silk and nylon fibres with a uniform structure did not exhibit the directional water collection phenomenon.”

Whether evolutionists can explain ‘how the spider came to gather dew’ is more uncertain. Even with functionality identified, perfecting this highly engineered system makes it most reasonable to infer intelligent, rather than natural, causation.

For more, go here.

38 Replies to “Design principles in spider silk

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Spider Spinning Web To Music In Fast Motion – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/.....st_motion/

    Here are few more points of trivia on the spider:

    Engineers have calculated that a woven cord of spider’s silk as thick as a pencil could stop a jet in midair.
    From the book ‘Weird Nature’ By John Downer

    Spider Silk Is Stronger Than Steel
    Excerpt:
    * The silk thread spun by spiders, measuring just one-thousandth of a millimeter across, is five times stronger than steel of the same thickness.
    * It can stretch up to four times its own length.
    * It is also so light that enough thread to stretch clear around the planet would weigh only 320 grams.
    “On the human scale, a web resembling a fishing net could catch a passenger jet airplane.”

    On the underside of the tip of the spider’s abdomen are three pairs of spinnerets. Each of these spinnerets is studded with many hairlike tubes called spigots. The spigots lead to silk glands inside the abdomen, each of which produces a different type of silk. As a result of the harmony between them, a variety of silk threads are produced. Inside the spider’s body, pumps, valves and pressure systems with exceptionally developed properties are employed during the production of the raw silk, which is then drawn out through the spigots. 34
    Most importantly, the spider can alter the pressure in the spigots at will, which also changes the structure of molecules making up the liquid keratin. The valves’ control mechanism, the diameter, resistance and elasticity of the thread can all be altered, thus making the thread assume desired characteristics without altering its chemical structure. If deeper changes in the silk are desired, then another gland must be brought into operation. And finally, thanks to the perfect use of its back legs, the spider can put the thread on the desired track.
    http://www.harunyahya.com/book.....tics01.php

    Biomimicry- Spider Hair: The Perfect Water Repellant Surface
    Excerpt: Because the trick is done with physics instead of chemistry, the hydrophobic surface manufactured to spider spec does not have to slough off any dangerous chemicals. Sigmund is now working on similar surface tricks that can repel oil. If engineers can figure out economical ways to manufacture these surfaces with enough durability for a range of temperatures, industry will beat a path,,,,.
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20100224b

    Amazing Animals: Design Vs. Darwinism – Christopher Ashcraft – Excerpt
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/.....t_excerpt/

    The 15 Coolest Cases of Biomimicry:
    http://brainz.org/15-coolest-cases-biomimicry/

    Shark Skin As Antibiotic
    Excerpt: New technologies developed after studying shark skin will soon be appearing at a hospital near you. Scientists at Sharklet Technologies, a Florida-based biotech company, have been studying shark skin for the interesting fact that bacteria just doesn’t seen to stick to it. Under the microscope, it appears that shark skin is composed of diamond-shaped bumps that give it this unique property. Hospital tests using plastic tubing (as used in intravenous lines and catheters) printed with this shark skin pattern showed that microorganisms which can cause potentially serious harm, such as E. coli and Staphylococcus Aureus, were unable to establish colonies large enough to infect humans.

    Shark Skin Inspires Ship Coating
    Excerpt: The coating doesn’t go anywhere near the engines — it will be applied on the hull of ships below the waterline, where all manner of algae, barnacles and other wee beasties attach themselves, slowing ships and reducing their maneuverability.,,, Sharks don’t have algae or barnacle problems despite being underwater all their lives. Shark skin is made up of tiny rectangular scales topped with even smaller spines or bristles. This makes shark skin rough to the touch. This irregular surface makes it difficult for plant spores to get a good grip and grow into algae or other plants.

    Mantis Shrimp Eyes Could Show Way To Better DVD And CD players
    “Our work reveals for the first time the unique design and mechanism of the quarter-wave plate in the mantis shrimp’s eye. It really is exceptional — out-performing anything we humans have so far been able to create.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....162459.htm

  2. 2
    hrun0815 says:

    I’m sorry. What exactly is the design principle you are referring to? Do you believe that you have knowledge that the intent of the designer was to create spider silk that dew can stick to? Have you considered that the designer might not have wanted this (maybe it’s simply a by-product of creating spider silk). Have you considered that maybe he wanted to create a material that dew sticks to and serendipidously discovered silk? Maybe there are other options. How would you know what the disgner wanted to do?

  3. 3
    Heinrich says:

    Even with functionality identified, perfecting this highly engineered system makes it most reasonable to infer intelligent, rather than natural, causation.

    Do you mean ‘because this highly engineered system is perfect it is most reasonable to infer intelligent causation’? If so, what makes you think that spider’s silk is perfect?

    And if you didn’t mean that, what did you mean?

  4. 4

    While Biomimetics and applying the designer’s designs to human engineering is truly fascinating, sometimes I wonder if the designer isn’t using his designs as illustrations (e.g. spider webs in Job 8 and Isaiah 59) to convey weightier truths.
    For example snow’s “high degree of hexagonal structure and symmetry” is wildly intriguing under the electron microscope but snow used in an illustration like say Isaiah 1:18 could potentially be life altering (if the information is true). Just like fire’s destructive power as in James 3:5-6.

    In other words it is as if the objects of our fascination (spider’s silk, snow, fire) are designed proactively to be used as illustrations for a much more powerful purpose and not the other way around as when someone thinks of something to say and hunts for just any illustration.

  5. 5
    Adel DiBagno says:

    So, Franck,

    What is the design consortium trying to tell us?

    “We are here, please applaud”?

  6. 6
    Seversky says:

    Whether evolutionists can explain ‘how the spider came to gather dew’ is more uncertain. Even with functionality identified, perfecting this highly engineered system makes it most reasonable to infer intelligent, rather than natural, causation.

    Sorry, but this is just neo-Paleyism. Yes, everywhere we look in Nature we can find examples of biological systems and functions of amazing intricacy, complexity and efficiency. A lot of them are better than anything we’ve been able to design so far. But that doesn’t mean they were designed.

    It is true that, before the theory of evolution, you could argue that the design hypothesis was an inference to the best explanation because no one had been able to come up with anything better. Darwin changed all that. He showed that there could be a naturalistic alternative. The theory wasn’t perfect. He didn’t get everything right. But what he did laid the groundwork for a whole new field of research which has burgeoned in the 150 years since.

    Evolution doesn’t rule out the possibility of intelligent interference in the course of life on Earth. Some alien or deity – or even both – could have started the ball rolling billions of years ago and even had their sticky little fingers in the process since. The question is, where’s the evidence?

    Hume’s criticism of the argument from design still stands. It is argument from analogy and analogy only works to the extent that the two cases being compared are similar. Argument from analogy is not itself a fallacy but the temptation is always to cherry-pick the similarities and downplay the differences and that is a fallacy – the fallacy of selective reporting.

  7. 7
    David Tyler says:

    hrun0815 @ 2
    What exactly is the design principle you are referring to? Do you believe that you have knowledge that the intent of the designer was to create spider silk that dew can stick to?
    The words are not mine – but the authors. They can see “design principles” when they look at spider silk!
    There is no intent to know the mind of the designer – on my part or on the part of the researchers.
    Design principles emerge from an analysis of the materials. Spider silk is constructed with a high degree of specificity. In ID terminology, we have here complex specified information. That is what the researchers have recovered and that is what is guiding the next steps of their research.

  8. 8
    David Tyler says:

    Seversky @ 6
    It is true that, before the theory of evolution, you could argue that the design hypothesis was an inference to the best explanation because no one had been able to come up with anything better. Darwin changed all that. He showed that there could be a naturalistic alternative. The theory wasn’t perfect. He didn’t get everything right. But what he did laid the groundwork for a whole new field of research which has burgeoned in the 150 years since.
    After Darwin, things did change. However, although Darwin’s alternative was naturalistic, it was not robust. There are no examples of natural selection acting on mutations that demonstrate novel complex specified information. The examples he gave were primarily of intelligent selection of pre-existing (genetic) information. Despite much work on natural selection, none of the studies has contributed any real insights as to how CSI can be acquired. Whenever the theory is invoked, it is theory abstracted from empirical evidence. In most areas of science, people who wave theory unsupported by data are treated with some suspicion – but in evolutionary biology, it is accepted because there is no other naturalistic option. This is a clear case of ideology masquerading as science.

  9. 9
    hrun0815 says:

    The words are not mine – but the authors. They can see “design principles” when they look at spider silk!
    There is no intent to know the mind of the designer – on my part or on the part of the researchers.
    Design principles emerge from an analysis of the materials. Spider silk is constructed with a high degree of specificity.

    David, you quoted the words about the Design Principles. So there are two options:

    a) the authors meant something specific with the words ‘design principles’ and you know about it (otherwise you would not have quoted the words)

    b) you meant something specific by the words ‘design principles’

    What do the words mean in this context? What are those design principles? Do they relate to an actual physical designer? Are they actually not related to a designer at all?

    You quoted the words. You should know.

    In ID terminology, we have here complex specified information.

    Oh. Complex specified information. What is the CSI of spider silk? 3? 5000? 10^300? How do you arrive by that number and how do you make sure everybody arrives at that very same number? Or is there actually no such thing as the CSI of spider silk (which would be my guess)?

    That is what the researchers have recovered and that is what is guiding the next steps of their research.

    And what is that next step? Is it in any way related to the supposed ‘design inference’? Or, will in fact evolutionists yet again do such research without at all relying on a design inference in the first place?

  10. 10
    Barb says:

    Seversky: “ A lot of them are better than anything we’ve been able to design so far. But that doesn’t mean they were designed.”

    Which is more logical: believing that spider silk came about by chance or that it was designed? I read this recently on spider silk and found it interesting: “It’s humbling to realize that a lot of very smart people are trying to replicate what the spiders in our basements can do naturally,” says biologist Cheryl Y. Hayashi, quoted in Chemical & Engineering News magazine.

    “The question is, where’s the evidence?”

    Staring you right in the face but you’re too busy denigrating it to the level of naturalistic phenomena to see it.

  11. 11
    Lenoxus says:

    #9 hrun0815: “What is the CSI of spider silk?”

    I believe the ID answer is “yes”. As in, the silk demonstrates CSI, which is a have-it-or-you-don’t quality. (Please ignore all contrary claims by ID mathematician(s) that CSI is a measurable quantity.)

  12. 12
    Seversky says:

    David Tyler @ 8

    After Darwin, things did change. However, although Darwin’s alternative was naturalistic, it was not robust.

    I would say that after 150 years as the dominant theory in the field it’s pretty robust. Unless, of course, you buy the conspiracy theory that it’s only kept there by a cabal of the world’s biologists.

    There are no examples of natural selection acting on mutations that demonstrate novel complex specified information.

    But there are examples of natural selection acting on mutations and filtering out the beneficial from the detrimental in given environments.

    All this speculation about CSI is a distraction. There is no clear agreement on what is meant by ‘information’ so calling it “complex” and “specified” is really just implying that it – whatever “it” is – is the product of an intelligent agent. Even worse, there is no reason to think it is a property of what is being modeled rather than just a property of the model itself.

    This is a clear case of ideology masquerading as science.

    As distinct from the self-proclaimed alternative which was designed to be the acceptable secular face of a religious movement whose stated purpose was the overthrow of atheistic materialism?

  13. 13
    Seversky says:

    Barb @ 10

    Which is more logical: believing that spider silk came about by chance or that it was designed?

    We didn’t design it. We have no evidence of any other designers as yet. You tell me which is the more logical inference.

    I read this recently on spider silk and found it interesting: “It’s humbling to realize that a lot of very smart people are trying to replicate what the spiders in our basements can do naturally,” says biologist Cheryl Y. Hayashi, quoted in Chemical & Engineering News magazine.

    Spider’s silk is marvelous stuff, no question. But life has had billions of years to come up with something like that. We’ve only been at it for a few decades at best. Give us a million years and see what we can do then. Better still, run a million-year-long experiment in parallel to see what unguided evolution does in the same timespan.

    Staring you right in the face but you’re too busy denigrating it to the level of naturalistic phenomena to see it.

    Why on Earth would you think it is denigrating it to explain it as a natural phenomenon? Whether designed or evolved, it’s still an amazing substance. And no one has given a good reason for why God could not have created the process of evolution as part of His grand design. Who are we to say what God can or cannot do?

  14. 14
    Heinrich says:

    Despite much work on natural selection, none of the studies has contributed any real insights as to how CSI can be acquired.

    IDers invented the concept of CSI, and evolutionary biologists are not going to look at it unless we can be persuaded that it’s worth using. Some examples of how to calculate it for real biological issues (e.g. spider silk) would be a start.

  15. 15
    hrun0815 says:

    I believe the ID answer is “yes”. As in, the silk demonstrates CSI, which is a have-it-or-you-don’t quality. (Please ignore all contrary claims by ID mathematician(s) that CSI is a measurable quantity.)

    Well, if it is not actually measurable, then there is at least an objective way to determine if spider silk has or does not have CSI, right?

    So, at the very least, somebody can point to an OBJECTIVE way to determine that.

    Otherwise, saying that spider silk contains CSI is akin to simply stating that spider silk is designed.

  16. 16
    InVivoVeritas says:

    Seversky at #6:

    “Sorry, but this is just neo-Paleyism. Yes, everywhere we look in Nature we can find examples of biological systems and functions of amazing intricacy, complexity and efficiency. A lot of them are better than anything we’ve been able to design so far. But that doesn’t mean they were designed.”

    Yes, that clearly means that they were designed.

    And it means much more than that. It means: “I am sending another message addressed to your reason saying that: “I am” and that: “I am Good and I am a Marvelous Designer” and “I am Excellent” and that: “I created you in My image and I gave you intelligence to understand that My Creation is marvelous, and I gave you reason so that my message is unequivocal about my existence and my divine power and those that pretend that My message is not clear have no excuse”.

    Also, I don’t care that you think its neo-Paleyism versus paleo-Paleyism. It is an eternal true-Paleyism.
    Your philosophycal perorations should not impress any one with a clear mind about the adequacy of Paley metaphor.

  17. 17
    hrun0815 says:

    re #15: So you certainly claim to understand the intentions of the designer. That is truly remarkable, which puts you probably head and shoulders above most other design proponents.

  18. 18
    bornagain77 says:

    hrun0815,
    and sir, what about all the atheists who claim to know the intentions of the Designer by saying, ” God would not have made it that way.”? while all the time ignoring the astonishing levels of meaning and purpose we find embedded throughout reality.

  19. 19
    hrun0815 says:

    and sir, what about all the atheists who claim to know the intentions of the Designer by saying, ” God would not have made it that way.”? while all the time ignoring the astonishing levels of meaning and purpose we find embedded throughout reality.

    What about them? I didn’t comment about them? If I did, then I would probably call them on knowing the designer.

    So what is it, bornagain77? Are the atheists and InVivoVeritas correct in assuming that they know the mind of the designer? Or are they both wrong? Or are the atheists wrong while InVivoVeritas is right.

    It seems that your post (while directly addressing mine) does not answer that question in the least.

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    Hrun;
    Romans 1:20

  21. 21
    hrun0815 says:

    bornagain77;

    Greeks 7:43

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    Hrun;
    Romans 1:20 says;
    For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

    Myself, I rather fancy the more recently discovered fine-tuning of the mass density of the universe to make this point:

    My Beloved One – Inspirational Christian Song
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/.....tian_song/

    Fine Tuning Of Dark Energy and Mass of the Universe – Hugh Ross – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/....._universe/

    To clearly illustrate the stunning degree of fine-tuning we are dealing with in the universe, Dr. Ross has used the illustration of adding or subtracting a single dime’s worth of mass in the observable universe would have been enough of a change in mass density to make life impossible in this universe. This word picture he uses, with the dime, helps to demonstrate a number used to quantify that fine-tuning of mass for the universe, namely 1 part in 10^60 for mass density. Compared to the total mass of the observable universe, 1 part in 10^60 works out to about a tenth part of a dime, if not smaller.

    Where Is the Cosmic Density Fine-Tuning? – Hugh Ross
    http://www.reasons.org/where-c.....ine-tuning

    Hebrews 11:3
    “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.”

    Anthropic Principle – God Created The Universe – Michael Strauss – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/.....rauss_phd/

    Intelligent Design – The Anthropic Hypothesis
    http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/

  23. 23
    hrun0815 says:

    bornagain77, thank you for your long post on Romans 1:20. However, I have no idea what at all it has to do with post #15 and #16.

    Are you (and InVivoVeritas) claiming that the designer of spider silk is the Christian God? And are you also claiming that the bible says so, and that’s why you think it is true? If that is really the case, why didn’t you say so in the first place? However, if that is not true, then how is it at all pertinent to the discussion of how #15 thinks he knows the mind of the designer?

  24. 24
    bornagain77 says:

    Hrun;
    InVivoVeritas can’t help it if you refuse to open your eyes to see the awesome wonders of design all around you and to then acknowledge the message it is telling us about the “Good” designer i.e. that He is good, powerful, and cares for us. About all we can do with someone like you, who stubbornly refuses to give any glory to God whatsoever, is to sit back and gently laugh in disbelief and wonder what is driving your underlying motives. i.e. Why do you choose to remain blind to what is so obvious?

  25. 25
    hrun0815 says:

    <blockquoteHrun;
    InVivoVeritas can’t help it if you refuse to open your eyes to see the awesome wonders of design all around you and to then acknowledge the message it is telling us about the “Good” designer i.e. that He is good, powerful, and cares for us. About all we can do with someone like you, who stubbornly refuses to give any glory to God whatsoever, is to sit back and gently laugh in disbelief and wonder what is driving your underlying motives. i.e. Why do you choose to remain blind to what is so obvious?

    Dang, it is really hard to find out what you really think!

    So am I correct with my analysis, that both you and InVivoVeritas

    a) know who the designer of spider silk is?

    b) know what the intentions of said designer are?

    c) both agree that the designer is indeed the christian god?

  26. 26
    Toronto says:

    bornagain77 @23,

    Why do you choose to remain blind to what is so obvious?

    If it is so obvious, why don’t so many like myself see it?

    We’re not talking a few people out of every thousand, but a group that outnumbers those that hold your position.

    Why with the same data, do we come to a different conclusion?

    There are a lot of very intelligent people on both sides that are completely at odds, so it is not a case of intelligence or education.

  27. 27
    hrun0815 says:

    Something went wrong with the blockquotes. It should look something like this:

    Hrun;
    InVivoVeritas can’t help it if you refuse to open your eyes to see the awesome wonders of design all around you and to then acknowledge the message it is telling us about the “Good” designer i.e. that He is good, powerful, and cares for us. About all we can do with someone like you, who stubbornly refuses to give any glory to God whatsoever, is to sit back and gently laugh in disbelief and wonder what is driving your underlying motives. i.e. Why do you choose to remain blind to what is so obvious?

    Dang, it is really hard to find out what you really think!

    So am I correct with my analysis, that both you and InVivoVeritas

    a) know who the designer of spider silk is?

    b) know what the intentions of said designer are?

    c) both agree that the designer is indeed the christian god?

  28. 28
    bornagain77 says:

    Hrun, it is hard for me to know what your true intentions are; Yet let me presuppose they are forthright and that you genuinely want to know the answers to these questions, and that they are not malicious as many trolls on UD have been before:

    From my personal research into what is the answer of question a, The designer of the universe and everything in it, including spider silk, is God, as reflected in John 1:1

    In the beginning was The Word,,,

    which, upon other references I have, answers question c as well

    the answer to question b is a cumulative answer that is arrived at by a full survey of the evidence, which you may review here if you choose:

    Intelligent Design – The Anthropic Hypothesis
    http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/

  29. 29
    hrun0815 says:

    bornagain77, how about you don’t devine my intentions at all and thus we can simply discuss what I write.

    I had a very specific question: Did InVivoVeritas claim to know the mind of the designer?

    Then, after your posts, I had some other questions: Do you belive to know the mind of the designer and do you believe it is actually the christian god?

    Those things are easy to clarify and they don’t rely in any way on my intentions. Nor, by the way, do they rely on the fact if I am a candian or if O’Leary pays for my salary with her taxes.

    So what I can gather from your post is that you (and probably InVivoVeritas) break very significanlty from many people on this board. Mung, for example, was dismayed by a post of O’Leary that addressed just that issue of the designer being god.

    So, it seems that in your case discussion is extremely difficult. Not only have you decided that design is in virtually everything complex we see on this earth. But you also decided as to who the designer is. And you also already decided as to what that designers mind is.

    It is, sadly, not a surprise to me, but it is shocking nonetheless to see this so openly admitted on this board.

  30. 30
    bornagain77 says:

    Hrun, Do you presuppose it is not possible to know these things? Have you even looked at the evidence I presented to back my assertion?
    you say you want to discuss these things, but How is it possible for me to discuss something with someone who has decided what the answer is beforehand, as you have obviously done without reviewing the evidence I presented to defend my case. I’m sorry for even you giving you the benefit of a doubt of being sincere!

  31. 31
    bornagain77 says:

    Hrun, Do you presuppose it is not possible to know these things? Have you even looked at the evidence I presented to back my assertion?
    you say you want to discuss these things, but How is it possible for me to discuss something with someone who has decided what the answer is beforehand, as you have obviously done without reviewing the evidence I presented to defend my case. From such close mindedness, in this as well as other threads I’ve seen you in, I’m sorry for even giving you the benefit of a doubt of being sincere in your request!

  32. 32
    hrun0815 says:

    Yes. I indeed presuppose that it is not possible to know those things. And I am in great company here on this blog.

    You have not shown much of evidence. You have quoted many biblical quotes and you have quoted stuff about the fine-tuning of the universe.

    And I did not say that I do want to discuss these things. Where have I done so?

    But thank you for labeling me close-minded.

  33. 33
    Toronto says:

    bornagain77 @30,
    Scientific discussions, just like software, are layered.

    If a specific point is being discussed, you have to deal with it in context.

    I get the sense, that no matter what detail is being debated, the evidence for the ID side becomes all-encompassing and global at some point in the debate, just as in this one.

    The ID side will have to stay focused and in context if we’re going to get this debate into a public forum and resolved, so that students in the future don’t have to suffer through a debate they clearly don’t yet have the information to decide themselves.

  34. 34
    bornagain77 says:

    hrun:
    “But thank you for labeling me close-minded.”

    “Yes. I indeed presuppose that it is not possible to know those things.”

    but is it a “label” when you admit it?

  35. 35
    hrun0815 says:

    bornagain77, how can you tell from my statement that I am closemided. You asked me an opinion and I gave it to you. Nothing in that statement says that I am unable or unwilling to change my made when presented with evidence. You are jumping to conclusions that are not warranted from the statement.

  36. 36
    Seversky says:

    InVivoVeritas @ 15

    And it means much more than that. It means: “I am sending another message addressed to your reason saying that: “I am” and that: “I am Good and I am a Marvelous Designer” and “I am Excellent”…

    We can see what a marvelous designer He is. There’s the cancers caused by irreparable damage to our fragile genes, there’s the diseases caused when our marvelous immune system turns against the body it’s supposed to be defending, there’s a spontaneous abortion rate that could be as much as 50% of all conceptions, there’s brain dementias, developmental disorders, flesh-eating bugs. I could go on but you get the idea. Maybe He exists. Maybe, in His own mind, He’s “good” and “excellent” and a “marvelous designer” but, seriously, this is past a joke.

    and I gave you reason so that my message is unequivocal about my existence and my divine power and those that pretend that My message is not clear have no excuse”.

    Oh, we get the message alright but it’s not the message a lot of people would like it to be.

    Also, I don’t care that you think its neo-Paleyism versus paleo-Paleyism. It is an eternal true-Paleyism.

    I’m sure you don’t care what I think. It will probably not make the slightest difference. You will go on believing what gives you comfort and hope and that is your right.

    But if you want to infer anything about your God or the designer you need to look at His creation as a whole, not just the good bits.

  37. 37
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky:
    Have you ever heard of “the fall of man?”,,, Christians always claimed that we were in a fallen world and never claimed that we were already in heaven! As well, if it is possible to get past, what I perceive to be, your deep seeded anger towards God, may I ask you; How does the presence of natural evil in the world negate a inference to design in the first place? It just does not follow logically.

    Refuting The “Bad Design” Vs. Intelligent Design Argument – William Lane Craig – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/.....ane_craig/

    off topic:

    I just remembered that it is Pi day:

    3:14

    which is Albert Einstein’s birthday;

    This related website has the complete working out of the math of Pi, e in Gen 1:1 and John 1:1 in the Bible, in the Hebrew and Greek languages:
    http://www.biblemaths.com/pag03_pie/

    Eulers Number – God Created Mathematics – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/.....thematics/

  38. 38
    David Tyler says:

    hrun0815 @ 9
    [Regarding] Design Principles. So there are two options:
    a) the authors meant something specific with the words ‘design principles’ and you know about it (otherwise you would not have quoted the words)
    b) you meant something specific by the words ‘design principles’
    What do the words mean in this context? What are those design principles? Do they relate to an actual physical designer? Are they actually not related to a designer at all?

    The phrase, as used by the authors and by myself, mean that the information as to how moisture-acquiring silk is constructed has been identified by a process of reverse engineering, and that this information can now be used (and has been used) to engineer something similar (but not yet as good as the natural product). So, the principles relate to the work of an actual designer.
    I’ll post another blog on design principles in the natural world and you can have another look at the concept there.

    Seversky @ 12
    But there are examples of natural selection acting on mutations and filtering out the beneficial from the detrimental in given environments.

    We all know this. If you want a useful exchange, you must realise that it is possible to analyse the significance of the empirical findings. It is not only ID scientists who think that natural selection has been hyped up as a mechanism. There are many others who are convinced that there must be some other processes that can take evolution a lot further than Darwinian mechanisms. Furthermore, they can see that the building of complexity takes more than incremental selection of mutations – and this is why complex specified information is a key to making progress in understanding what the issues really are.

Leave a Reply