The tagline for the article from PhysOrg.com that I link to here, was “Nano propellers pump with proper chemistry.” Despite no mention being made of it, my immediate thought was: “Their design is based on what biological systems already do.”
Then, perusing the article, after all the talk about what Petr KrÃƒÂ¡l is doing in his Univ. of Illinois lab, about how this pump works, etc, etc., we find the following:
KrÃƒÂ¡l’s laboratory studies how biological systems, like tiny flagella that move bacteria, offer clues for building motors, motile systems and other nanoscale devices in a hybrid environment that combines biological and inorganic chemistry.
I find it almost infuriating that there are labs like Petr Kral’s all over the world that are doing this kind of work every day, and, yet, our Darwinist brothers tell us that, unlike any potential contact with ET’s, in this case we cannot possible know anything about any Intelligent Designer.
One has to ask the question: If the Intelligent Designer designed the universe, and the Designer’s intelligence is beyond anything we could possibly comprehened, then how is it that Einstein gave us a description of gravity, AND, in so doing say that his discovery was “like knowing the Mind of God”?
In the particular case of Kral’s work, one has to ask: How is it possible to examine biological life, AND on the BASIS of what one SEES, then construct a molecular machine of heretofore unknown sophistication, and then, simultaneously maintain that no inference about any so-called Intelligent Designer can be made….”since we don’t know anything about Him–He’s beyond science”? Further, if biological systems contain no intelligence, how, then, can you study them? Why doesn’t some Darwinian-Believer answer that one? How can someone “learn” how to build a nanoscale molecular pump from such a study of extant biological systems and then have that very possibility denied by saying: “There’s no intelligence in what I’m studying. What are you talking about?”? Is this like Baron Munchhausen being able to pull himself out of the mud by pulling on his hair?
Philisophically speaking, how can you “study” that which is, per your own definition, “incomprehensible”? Would Darwinists like to ‘fess up about all of this?