Quantum Theory as Original Source of Information

Atomic Particles Transfer Information In and Out of Our Universe

ID Theory has nothing to do with creationism or a designer. There is no philosophical contemplation as to a designer any more than the Big Bang theory has anything to say about a banger.

It is impossible to complain about the “designer” of Intelligent Design Theory without resolving the “banger” inferred by the Big Bang Theory. One cannot deny there is a “banger” if they insist there is a designer, and vice versa.

The request is as absurd as requiring cosmologists to explain the nature of the Banger. To assert that Intelligent Design requires a Designer is as ridiculous as demanding it is impossible to have a Big Bang without a Banger. A designer cannot be imposed upon ID Theory without likewise imposing one on the Big Bang theory. The study of the Big Bang has nothing to do with what existed at Time = zero. The same is true with the origin of information. We study how information operates and increases towards greater biological complexity, and assert that an artificial intervention is involved in addition to unguided natural processes.

According to the Big Bang theory, at up to 1 x 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang, the universe expanded and began cooling from the Planck epoch. Gravitation began to separate from the fundamental gauge interactions: electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang. The question is, WHAT EXISTED AT TIME = ZERO, just 1 x 10-43 of a second before? The answer to this question is the answer as to why ID Theory does not require a designer.

Big Bang Timeline

Little is known about the Planck epoch, and different theories propose different scenarios. General relativity predicts a gravitational singularity before this time, but under these conditions the theory is expected to break down due to quantum effects. Physicists hope that proposed theories of quantum gravitation, such as string theory, loop quantum gravity, and causal sets, will eventually lead to a better understanding of this epoch.

The reason why no matter or deity is required at Time = zero is because according to quantum mechanics and atomic physics, atomic particles zip in and out of existence from dimensions outside our universe. The same is the case for the origin of information that ID Theory studies, http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-scientists-erase-energy.html.

As an ID proponent, I was very interested to understand how quantum particles are related to be a possible source of CSI. I have also always been a lifelong fan of string theory, which is now “M” Theory.  It is my prediction the Complex Specified Information (CSI) that was discovered by William Dembski is entering our universe from elsewhere in the cosmos via quantum particles.  I base this prediction upon the fact that genomic information is leaking into our universe from an outside source because scientists cannot discern where the information is otherwise originating.

Almost every biologist I have ever come across has no speculation as to where genetic information originates.  The prevailing view in origin of life studies is that of chemicals simply replicating on their own with no assistance from an outside source.  I reject this idea in favor that the question is resolved via quantum physics.

Brian Greene: The universe on a string:

Here’s a list of other related science articles:

Hawking co-scientist Roger Penrose debunks M-theory on Christian Radio:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg_95wZZFr4&feature=player_embedded

String theory entangled:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/62971/title/String_theory_entangled_

Thunderstorms Shoot Antimatter Beams Into Space, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/01/110111-thunderstorms-antimatter-beams-fermi-radiation-science-space/

First quantum effects seen in visible object, http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18669-first-quantum-effects-seen-in-visible-object.html

A Romp Through Theories on Origins of Life, http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator and http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/science/22origins.html?_r=1

Scientists make teleportation breakthrough: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/38/20110415/tsc-scientists-make-teleportation-breakt-98fda55.html

Weird ‘unparticle’ boosted by Tevatron signal:http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028136.400-weird-unparticle-boosted-by-tevatron-signal.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=magcontents featured on Uncommon Descent here, http://www.uncommondescent.com/physics/cosmology-and-now-the-minimalist-the-unparticle/

Aside | Posted on by | 3 Comments

MANY MAINSTREAM SCIENTISTS ARE THEISTS

I constantly here about an erroneous belief that has no factual basis. The idea is that somehow creationism is inherently flawed. First of all, creationism is based upon religion. There are many religions that have creation stories, not just Judaism and Christianity.

Science Research

With this in mind, it should be noted that Intelligent Design has no creation story, and has no creation account conjecture to offer anyone. ID does not support any religious affiliation. Philosophically, Intelligent Design is just as much of a neutral position on the supernatural as atheism is. The next time someone wants to label an ID proponent as being a creationist, the accuser should be prepared to identify just exactly what creation account do they have in mind. Is it an American Indian creation account? Which tribe? Is it from the Vedas? Perhaps they adhere to the creation story as presented in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

It is inherently error to simply stereotype ID advocates as being creationists, especially when many ID advocates are atheists or non-religious. Here’s a list of such individuals:

* Dan Brown, author of “The Da Vinci Code”, and other anti-Christian books, http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/10/02/what-caused-da-vinci-code-author-dan-brown-to-abandon-his-christian-faith/.

* David Berlinski

* Alfred Russel Wallace: Book, “A Rediscovered Life,” shows how evolution’s co-discoverer rejected darwinism, embraced ID Theory, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/01/new_book_shows_how_evolutions_043171.html;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxvAVln6HLI.

* David Deming, http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/deming5.1.1.html; associate professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma, and the author of Science and Technology in World History (Vols. 1 & 2); http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/why-one-guy-packed-up-and-left-darwinism/

* Don Johnson, Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability LITE: A Call to Scientific Integrity (2009), vi. http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/why-one-scientist-checked-out-of-darwinism/

* Bradley Monton, author of Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design (Broadview Press, 2009), p. 36; http://spot.colorado.edu/~monton/BradleyMonton/Home.html; http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/one-reason-an-atheist-philosopher-endorses-intelligent-design/

* Forrest M. Mims III, http://www.forrestmims.org/publications.html.

* Steve Fuller, (agnostic), http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/sociology/staff/academicstaff/sfuller/fullers_index/ graduated from Columbia University in History & Sociology before gaining an M.Phil. from Cambridge and PhD from Pittsburgh, both in the History and Philosophy of Science. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/sociology/staff/academicstaff/sfuller/

* Mary Midgley (British philosopher); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Midgley; http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolutionary-psychology/she-said-it-philosopher-mary-midgley-tells-humanists-why-she-isn%E2%80%99t-a-humanist/

* Michael Denton (PhD in Biochemistry); http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/michael_dentons075911.html

Not only are there many different religious belief systems, but there are several varieties of creationism within Judeo-Christian theology. The most popular views are:    

1. Young Earth Creationism (YEC)
2. Old Earth Creationism
3. Theistic Evolution

Cern - Research Center

It is irrelevant what religion scientists have. The fact is that when one says “creationist,” this would include anyone that believe in any deity whatsoever. For example, Dr. Ken Miller adheres to theistic evolution, which is a form of creationism. It is foolishness to create a false dichotomy matching anyone who is not an atheist as somehow not scientific or anti-science.

Biology Professor Dr. Kenneth Miller Adheres To Theistic Evolution

Biology Professor Dr. Ken Miller

This photo immediately above is Kenneth Miller in his laboratory at Brown University. Not only is Dr. Miller a biology professor, but he is an author of a biology textbook. Dr. Miller is a theist who adheres to Theistic Evolution, and has even written a book on the subject, “Finding Darwin’s God.”

Posted in RELIGIOUS, IDEOLOGICAL, AND SOCIOLOGICAL ISSUES | Leave a comment

The Intelligent Design Definition of DESIGN

Designer Enzyme

Computational Structure-Based Redesign of Enzyme Activity. PNAS (2009).

There is design in nature, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080217143838.htm.

Second, ID Theory is the study of design. More specifically, ID is the study of information (CSI) in the form of DNA in how it originated and increases in the genome of a population resulting in greater complexity.

DESIGN DEFINED:

Design — purposefully directed contingency. That is, the intelligent, creative manipulation of possible outcomes (and usually of objects, forces, materials, processes and trends) towards goals. (E.g. 1: writing a meaningful sentence or a functional computer program. E.g. 2: loading of a die to produce biased, often advantageous, outcomes. E.g. 3: the creation of a complex object such as a statue, or a stone arrow-head, or a computer, or a pocket knife.). Source: http://www.uncommondescent.com/glossary/.

Design can be defined in numerous ways. The most basic element of its definition infers intelligence, intention, direction, or guidance. Since ID being the science that it is, a scientific definition is required for the term, “design.” To avoid confusion, we identify design as “Specified Complexity,” aka “Complex Specified Information,” or CSI, https://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2011/05/07/complex-specified-information-csi/.

ID is a study of not just information, but CSI, the kind of information that infers design. Hence, ID Theory is just as much related to the field of bioinformatics as it is to biochemistry, http://www.evoinfo.org/.

William Dembski discusses specification, http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.06.Specification.pdf.

CSI DEFINED:

CSI – Life shows evidence of complex, aperiodic, and specified information in its key functional macromolecules, and the only other example we know of such function-specifying complex information are artifacts designed by intelligent agents. A chance origin of life would exceed the universal probability bound (UPB) set by the scope of the universe; hence design is a factor in the origin and development of life. Contrary to a commonly encountered (and usually dismissive) opinion, this concept is neither original to Dr Dembski nor to the design theory movement. Its first recognized use was by noted Origin of Life researcher, Leslie Orgel, in 1973:

Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity. [ L.E. Orgel, 1973. The Origins of Life. New York: John Wiley, p. 189. Emphases added.]

The concept of complex specified information helps us understand the difference between (a) the highly informational, highly contingent aperiodic functional macromolecules of life and (b) regular crystals formed through forces of mechanical necessity, or (c) random polymer strings. In so doing, they identified a very familiar concept — at least to those of us with hardware or software engineering design and development or troubleshooting experience and knowledge. Furthermore, on massive experience, such CSI reliably points to intelligent design when we see it in cases where we independently know the origin story. Source: http://www.uncommondescent.com/glossary/.

Much of Wm Dembski’s work and career has been devoted to research in bioinformatics related to CSI. Papers on the subject are available here, http://www.designinference.com/.

Stephen Meyer on Design, http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=847

Further reading, http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.09.Primer_on_Probability.pdf.

William Dembski comments on why inferring design does not require knowledge of a designer, http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.11.Hume_and_Reid.pdf.

Examples in Nature:

The following science research articles and videos are examples of design found in nature.  These are only the tip of the iceberg:

Fox Pouncing On Essentiall Undetectable Prey Under Snow

Foxes Use the Earth’s Magnetic Field to Detect Prey Under Snow

Woodpecker's Head

A Woodpecker’s Head’s Head Features a Remarkable Shock Absorber System

A Sea Turtle Uses Earth’s magnetic field to Navigate

Sea Turtles detect almost imperceptible gradients in Earth’s magnetic field.

Saber Toothed Vegetarian Dinosaur

Saber Toothed Vegetarian Dinosaur

Lizard Tongue

Posted in ID THE SCIENTIFIC THEORY | 2 Comments

CDESIGN PROPONENTSISTS

CONTRASTING BIBLICAL CREATIONISM TO ID

It is often said that Intelligent Design Theory is associated with creationism, and some even equate Intelligent Design to be creationism.  There’s no basis for this claim other than the ruling of Judge Jones in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Intelligent Design advocates have their own response to the Dover decision that can be reviewed here.

cdesign-proponentsists

Some Say A Word-Processing Error Was Enough To Prove ID Is Creationism

Many legal scholars concur that the most incriminating evidence offered at the Dover trial is a word processing error in the textbook, Of Pandas and People.  In an earlier edition of the Of Pandas and People textbook, a sloppy mistake produced the mispelling, “cdesign proponentsists.”  It has been widely held by many who followed the Dover case closely that this evidence was the deciding factor to convict ID Theory as being inherently religious.  A short YouTube video describing how this evidence was found can be viewed here.

Clearly, Judge Jones ruled in his Opinion as a matter of law that Intelligent Design was creationism.  But, the question still remains how could it be creationism if earlier copies of a textbook referenced creation?  One could reference al-qaeda in passing, but that would not make them a terrorist.  Referencing creationism does not make a textbook anymore creationist than the publishers of a history book would be Nazis because Hitler was referenced. Merely referencing the use of a term is insufficient evidence to determine whether the textbook really was indoctrinating young readers about creationism.  Moreover, the earlier edition they had found was from the year 1987.  Since that time, all the creationism content has been removed from the book. 

Of Pandas and People Textbook

The Word-Processing Error Appearing in the Pandas and People First Print (1987)

In other words, the most damaging evidence ever offered at trial in the Dover case was content that was alleged to be creationist material from an obsolete edition of a textbook, and not from the actual textbook that the Dover High School was using.  No evidence was ever produced that the 1987 edition actually had creationism content in the book other than the word processing error, “cdesign proponentsists.”  And, no evidence was ever offered at trial that the current revision of the text contained any creationist material. For more information on the history of the textbook, Of Pandas and People, you can review its development in this Wikipedia article.

It was only that the earlier textbook edition some 18 years earlier had the spelling error, and that spelling error attempting to replace the term “creationist” with “design proponent” was considered to be adequate enough evidence to allege that ID Theory is creationism, and therefore religious in nature.

A skeptic or critic of ID could argue the very reasonable point that if instances of “creation” can easily be changed out by substituting the term, “intelligent design,” then this is a problem for ID.  If the two terms are interchangeable in that the meaning of the text is not altered, then one should be able to conclude ID and creationism are synonymous.

My response to this would be that this situation does not exist today. The word processing glitch occurred in 1987. The 1987 edition of the text was in error. ID Theory is much different than it was in 1987. By the time of the Dover trial in 2005, ID had already advanced beyond obsolete creation terminology. The Of Pandas and People textbook version being used in Dover had been corrected, with all creationism content removed from the book.

The predecessor of the textbook was a biology textbook under the title, Creation Biology Textbook Supplements.  Although the book employed the term “creationism,” there was actually no creationism in the original or subsequent editions of the text. The book attempted to remove any bias toward any particular view, including creationism. In fact, that was how the book was marketed, it was advertised specifically to be an unbiased textbook. This is all decades ago now. The authors of the original text believe it was only fair to ACKNOWLEDGE creationism, since it is impossible to discuss the controversy without actually reference the terms “creation” and “evolution.”

There really was no creationism content in the textbook to begin with. Aside from the infamous paragraph that references fish appearing fully formed with fins, and birds fully formed with feathers, beaks, and wings, another sentence in the text reads as follows:

“The basic metabolic pathways of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct; creationists because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude the latter is correct.”

These are the strongest examples of creationism that can be found in the text. Although this references creationism, there is no attempt to instruct creationism, any philosophical aspect of creationism, or indoctrinate any philosophical contemplation whatsoever. It merely acknowledges that there is an alternate viewpoint, much like an anthropology textbook might mention various superstitutions held by an American Indian tribe somewhere, or aborigines in Australia.

Later, because just the mere mention of “creation” was offensive to atheists, and so controversial that many consider the term to be illegal in some jurisdictions, the book was printed under its new title, Of Pandas and People, which sported two editions. One addition retained the terms referencing creationism. The other was an Intelligent Design edition, which did a sloppy job of replacing the terms. Creationism is not ID, and it does not work to change out the terms like that. The terms are not interchangeable, and the meaning is not the same when the word, “creationist” is substituted with “intelligent design proponent.”

Perhaps the most controversial content in the textbook began with this quote in the earliest version of textbook, which prior to 1987 was a creationist textbook entitled Biology and Creation.  In that 1986 version, textbook reads:

Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact–fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Biology and Creation 1986, FTE 3015, p. 2-10)

The following year, with the new printing of the textbook was unchanged:

Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent Creator with their distinctive features already intact–fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Biology and Origins 1987, FTE 3235, p. 2-13)

In 1987, the textbook was also printed with a new title, with the controversial sentence remaining unchanged:

Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent Creator with their distinctive features already intact–fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1987, creationist version, FTE 4996-4997, pp. 2-14, 2-15)

Also in 1987, the textbook under new title also printed an intelligent design version in addition to the creation science version.  The intelligent design edition carried forward the controversial sentence still unchanged:

Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact–fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1987, intelligent design version, FTE 4667, p. 2-15)

The controversial sentence was also never corrected in the next printing in 1989:

Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1989, 1st edition, published, pp. 99-100)

In 1993, the Second Edition of the textbook was printed.  The controversial sentence continued to remain in the textbook.  This is the version the way the controversial text read that was in the edition adopted for use by the high school by the Dover Area School District:

Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1993, 2nd edition, published, pp. 99-100)

As already noted, the 1987 version of the Of Pandas and People textbook is flawed.  Additionally, this controversial sentence which is unmistakeably creationism was never corrected.  This sentence does not reflect ID Theory today in 2005, and certainly not today.  ID is NOT the belief that life forms were created with “with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.” That is creationism. ID Theory does not accept this view. ID Theory maintains evolution and common descent. The 1987 version of the textbook does not reflect the position of ID. By 1993, all creationism content had been removed from the textbook, with the exception of this one erroneous sentence. The Dover trial considered the 1987 erroneous edition to be admissible evidence. It is only evidence to demonstrate that ID did indeed arise from creationist roots.

Most critics of Intelligent Design read more into the word processing errors than what is there.  This is building a strawman claim against that accuses of ID maintaining the same erroneous views that were reflected in the 1987 edition of the obsolete textbook. This is an unsupported contention.

ID Theory does indeed still maintain today that “various forms of life began abruptly,” such as what is evident in the Cambrian Explosion. However, ID Theory rejects the notion that fish and birds did not evolve, as is implied in the textbook. 

Today, it is not possible to change out instances of creation and substitute ID without changing the meaning of the text because ID does not maintain Creationist views. It also depends on what kind of creationism it is, too. Theistic evolution is a form of creationism that does nothing but science with one exception. Theistic evolution is very much related to ID Theory except that it maintains a deity is responsible for creating the universe and life, while ID does not hold this view. There are similarities with ID and Creationism, but that does not make ID creationism. Humans are similar to dolphins because both life forms are mammals. But, that doesn’t mean that humans are dolphins.

But, is Intelligent Design religion? 

Is Intelligent Design theory really creationism?  There is no denying that Intelligent Design arose out of creationism.  However, this does not justify labeling the theory to be creationism.  For example, a person who is raised as an atheist might decide as an adult to adopt Buddhism.  Or, someone who grew up in a Buddhist family might decide to become an agnostic or Mormon.  There are people who bounce around exploring different faiths and ideologies.   There are people who have grown up in religious homes, but later abandon their heritage and religious roots as adults.  If Intelligent Design claims that it has outgrown it roots in creationism, there should be no reason to disbelief such a declaration unless new evidence arises that reveals otherwise. 

Today, Intelligent Design disassociates itself from any affiliation with theism or philosophical contemplations of the supernatural.  In fact, ID proponents repudiate creation, even the most secular version of creationism, which is theistic evolution.  Stephen Meyer talks about his view on theistic evolution in this YouTube video.

For someone yet not convinced enough to allow ID Theory the benefit of a doubt, and still desire to allege that Intelligent Design is creationism, please consider the following appeals to logic and reason. What about the tons of evidence that obviously shows that ID is NOT creationism? ID has no creation story. ID does not support an religious affiliation. If it is creation, whose creation account is it? Is it an American Indian creation account? Which tribe? Is it from the Vedas?

Science Research

Biblical Creationism is based upon religion; ID does not recognize any ideology.

Biblical Creationism is based upon the Bible; ID is not.

Biblical Creationism is based upon the Book of Genesis; ID is not.

Biblical Creationism is based upon philosophy; ID is not.

Biblical Creationism holds the Creator is the God of Israel; ID does not.

Biblical Creationism holds the Earth was created in six days; ID does not.

Creation science is primarily based upon geology and the fossil record; ID is based upon biochemistry.

Creation websites quote Bible verses; ID websites do not.

Creationists refute evolutionary theory; ID does not.

Biblical Creationism is an interpretation of the Book of Genesis; ID does not recognize the Bible.

Biblical Creationism requires a deity; ID does not.

Biblical Creationism identifies a designer; ID does not.

Biblical Creationism explains everything; ID does not.

Biblical Creationism offers macroevolution as an hypothesis; ID offers irreducible complexity.

Biblical Creationism relies heavily on the geologic fossil record pointing at gaps, and complaining of absence of transitional life forms; ID shuns arguments from ignorance positions.

ID advocates in favor of evolution; Creationism refutes evolution.

ID advocates in favor of common descent; Creationism refutes common descent.

ID is a study of genetic information; Biblical Creationism studies flood geology

ID is active in applied sciences such as biomimicry; Biblical Creationism does not have an applied science.

How does Intelligent Design describe its own theory?

Here are the definitions, https://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2011/05/07/technical-definitions-of-intelligent-design/.   You can also click here for the official Discovery Institute version of the definition.

ID makes it own affirmative predictions. ID Theory is not interested in what evolution and its mechanisms cannot do. What evolution doesn’t do is irrelevant. What ID Theory is interested in is what and how mechanisms of information increase and design DO perform. This is bioinformatics, and for examples of this work, you might like to review this, http://www.evoinfo.org/.

There is no KNOWN natural process as to how information (CSI) originated, in the form of DNA, and how it increases in the genome of a population resulting in increased complexity. The examples of evolution causing increase of information appear to be more anomalies than anything else, and are a rare event.

ID Theory is not about refuting evolution. ID Theory is the AFFIRMATIVE proposition that there is yet a missing mechanism or process yet to be discovered. Whether it is natural or non-natural remains to be seen.

There is no argument from incredulity here whatsoever. ID is the affirmative exploration in studying what mechanisms there are yet to be discovered that really operate to increase information. The limitations or inadequacies of existing mechanisms are of no significance. It’s irrelevant what mechanisms cannot do. The fact is that natural selection DOES do things. A frameshift, deletion, or duplication mutation DOES do something. And, we want to know what other factors are involved explaining the complexity and diversity of life.

Posted in KITZMILLER V. DOVER AND LEGAL ISSUES | Leave a comment

BIOMIMETICS, BIOMIMICRY, AND BIO-INSPIRED TECHNOLOGY:

BIOMIMETICS and BIOMIMICRY:

An engineered directional nanofilm mimics nature’s curious feats:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-10-nanofilm-mimics-nature-curious-feats.html

Woodpecker's Head Inspires Shock Absorbers

Woodpecker’s Head Inspires Shock Absorbers

Woodpecker’s head inspires shock absorbers, http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20088-woodpeckers-head-inspires-shock-absorbers.html and http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/woodpecker-drumming-inspires-shock-absorbing-system/ and http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature…/2011/02/10/woodpecker_drumming_inspires_shock_absor

Plants Used for Pharmaceuticals

The periwinkle plant is used to produce pharmaceuticals

 This example is not exactly biomimicry, but similar in that it is using nature to produce a specific engineered result.  Plants engineered to produce new drugs:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101103141533.htm

‘BacillaFilla’ for concrete cracks:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-bacillafilla-concrete.html

Aerospace Engineering Inspired by Seagulls

Aerospace Engineering Inspired by Seagulls

 New Airplane Design Mimics a Seagull:
http://www.livescience.com/technology/bird-like-airplane-101121.html
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-airplanes-bi…rds-envision-fuel-efficient.html

Jellyfish-inspired pumps: Researchers investigate next-generation medical and robotic devices:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101123095636.htm

Bionic Arm Inspired by Elephant Trunk

Bionic Arm Engineering Inspired by Design of An Elephant’s Trunk

 Short Sharp Science: Robotic elephant trunk could hang with humans:
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/11/robotic-trunk-makes-for-a-flex.html

Power Plants: Engineers Mimic Photosynthesis to Harvest Light Energy: Scientific American:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=power-plants-engineers-mimic-photosynthesis

New solar fuel machine unveiled:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12051167

PhysOrg.com article on “Insect eyes inspire improved solar cells,” http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-insect-eyes-solar-cells.html, and http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-human-eye.html

Tree Helicopter

Aerospace Engineering of Single-Wing Helicopter Inspired By Tree Leaf Design

 Researchers build flying robotic ‘tree helicopter’ (w/ Video) http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-robotic-tree-helicopter-video.html

Dragonfly wings inspire micro wind turbine design, http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20927975.000-dragonfly-wings-inspire-micro-wind-turbine-design.html

Nanotechnology and Molecular Machines       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5lVnTleSgs&feature=player_embedded and http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110201110913.htm

Scientists Try to Duplicate Clam Glue and Bacterial Biofilm http://www.pnas.org/content/108/3/995.full; http://biomaterials.bme.northwestern.edu/Papers/PNAS_Holten-Andersen.pdf; and https://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/biological-camouflage-and-mimicry/

Robot Hummingbird

Radio-Control Robot Hummingbird Will Serve U.S. Military Intelligence

Robot hummingbird passes flight tests (w/ Video) http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-robot-hummingbird-flight-video.html; http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-plants-that-can-move-inspire.html; and http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-mimicking-photosynthesis-path-solar-derived-hydrogen.html

CATALOG OF OTHER EXAMPLES OF BIO-INSPIRED TECHNOLOGY:

Study of 90 animals’ thigh bones reveals how they can efficiently carry loads, http://www.labspaces.net/109470/Study_of____animals__thigh_bones_reveals_how_they_can_efficiently_carry_loads

Ultra-realistic bionic bird, http://brightcove.newscientist.com/services/player/bcpid659647535001?bckey=AQ~~,AAAAADqBmN8~,Yo4S_rZKGX3S7qzA9QxPBGY4CrdM-P1a&bctid=864522300001 and http://t.co/kMTRO33

NJIT Professor Develops a Biologically-Inspired Catalyst, an Active Yet Inert Material, http://www.njit.edu/news/2011/2011-153.php and http://tinyurl.com/3flc5tt

DNA: The Ultimate Hard Drive, http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/08/written-in-dna-code.html?rss=1, Facebook Thread: https://www.facebook.com/groups/140995135944096/permalink/432185040158436/

Electric Bugs: New Microbe Forms Living, Deep-Sea Power Cables | Wired Science, http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/10/bacteria-electric-wires/?pid=5170, Facebook Thread: https://www.facebook.com/groups/140995135944096/permalink/463774246999515/

Artificial jellyfish built from rat cells, http://www.nature.com/news/artificial-jellyfish-built-from-rat-cells-1.11046, Facebook link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/140995135944096/permalink/422697077773899/

Fireflies Inspire Brighter LEDs, http://news.discovery.com/tech/gear-and-gadgets/fireflies-inspire-brighter-leds-130109.htm, Facebook link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/140995135944096/permalink/489259894450950/

Biomimetics Strikes Again, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/biomimetics_str067511.html, Facebook Thread: https://www.facebook.com/groups/140995135944096/permalink/478361598874113/

Need Extraordinary Materials?  Look to Nature, http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2011/12/extraordinary-materials-look-to-nature.html, Facebook link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/140995135944096/permalink/478367572206849/

Biomimicry: Butterflies being studied to improve solar technology, http://news.nost.org.cn/tag/biomimicry/, Facebook Thread: https://www.facebook.com/groups/140995135944096/permalink/453709558005984/

Short Sharp Science: Butterfly-wings wafers to clad iridescent buildings, http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2012/10/butterfly-wing-wafers-to-clad.html, Facebook link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/140995135944096/permalink/456018181108455/

PLOS Computational Biology: Experimental Studies and Dynamics Modeling Analysis of the Swimming and Diving of Whirligig beetles, http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002792, Facebook link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/140995135944096/permalink/472338626143077/

Self-filling water bottle takes cues from desert beetle, http://phys.org/news/2012-11-self-filling-bottle-cues-beetle.html, Facebook link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/140995135944096/permalink/472573709452902/

Nature inspires research to convert solar into liquid fuel – RMIT University, http://www.rmit.com.au/browse;ID=g5psih9zj86v1, Facebook link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/140995135944096/permalink/460404824003124/

Inspiration from Mother Nature leads to improved wood, http://phys.org/news/2012-10-mother-nature-wood.html, Facebook link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/140995135944096/permalink/460667650643508/

Aerial Robot Maneuvers Like a Bird, http://www.voanews.com/content/robot_smart_bird/1538352.html, Facebook Thread: https://www.facebook.com/groups/140995135944096/permalink/460474290662844/

Folding funnels key to biomimicry, http://phys.org/news/2012-10-funnels-key-biomimicry.html, Facebook link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/140995135944096/permalink/461089960601277/

Nanoscale structures of fireflies inspire cheaper LED lamps, http://www.nanowerk.com/news2/newsid=27175.php, Facebook link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/140995135944096/permalink/461096757267264/

How butterfly wings can inspire new high-tech surfaces, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121107122457.htm, Facebook Thread: https://www.facebook.com/groups/140995135944096/permalink/464467036930236/

Catch and release of rare cancer cells inspired by jellyfish, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121112171314.htm, Facebook Thread: https://www.facebook.com/groups/140995135944096/permalink/464755006901439/

Optics InfoBase: Optics Express – A bio-inspired polymeric gradient refractive index (GRIN) human eye, http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?uri=oe-20-24-26746, Facebook link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/140995135944096/permalink/466068450103428/

Owls’ Ability to Fly in Acoustic Stealth Provides Clues to Mitigating Conventional Aircraft Noise, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121119104525.htm, Facebook link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/140995135944096/permalink/478368815540058/

Dragonfly Designs Inspire Engineering, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/01/dragonfly_sense067971.html, Facebook link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/140995135944096/permalink/486502391393367/

Nature-inspired advance for treating sensitive teeth, http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_ARTICLEMAIN&node_id=223&content_id=CNBP_031814&use_sec=true&sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=4c7714e0-91ce-4dcd-8d1a-fe0a21571782BIOMIMETICS, Facebook link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/140995135944096/permalink/486903961353210/

An engineered directional nanofilm mimics nature’s curious feats: http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-10-nanofilm-mimics-nature-curious-feats.html

‘BacillaFilla’ for concrete cracks:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-bacillafilla-concrete.html

New Airplane Design Mimics a Seagull:
http://www.livescience.com/technology/bird-like-airplane-101121.html
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-airplanes-bi…rds-envision-fuel-efficient.html

Jellyfish-inspired pumps: Researchers investigate next-generation medical and robotic devices: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101123095636.htm

Short Sharp Science: Robotic elephant trunk could hang with humans: http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/11/robotic-trunk-makes-for-a-flex.html

Power Plants: Engineers Mimic Photosynthesis to Harvest Light Energy: Scientific American, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=power-plants-engineers-mimic-photosynthesis

New solar fuel machine unveiled, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12051167

Insect eyes inspire improved solar cells, http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-insect-eyes-solar-cells.html, and http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-human-eye.html

Researchers build flying robotic ‘tree helicopter’ (w/ Video), http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-robotic-tree-helicopter-video.html

Dragonfly wings inspire micro wind turbine design, http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20927975.000-dragonfly-wings-inspire-micro-wind-turbine-design.html

Nanotechnology and Molecular Machines, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5lVnTleSgs&feature=player_embedded and http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110201110913.htm

Scientists Try to Duplicate Clam Glue and Bacterial Biofilm, http://www.pnas.org/content/108/3/995.full and http://biomaterials.bme.northwestern.edu/Papers/PNAS_Holten-Andersen.pdf

Biological Camouflage and Mimicry, https://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/biological-camouflage-and-mimicry/

Study of 90 animals’ thigh bones reveals how they can efficiently carry loads, http://www.labspaces.net/109470/Study_of____animals__thigh_bones_reveals_how_they_can_efficiently_carry_loads

Ultra-realistic bionic bird, http://brightcove.newscientist.com/services/player/bcpid659647535001?bckey=AQ~~,AAAAADqBmN8~,Yo4S_rZKGX3S7qzA9QxPBGY4CrdM-P1a&bctid=864522300001 and http://t.co/kMTRO33

NJIT Professor Develops a Biologically-Inspired Catalyst, an Active Yet Inert Material, http://www.njit.edu/news/2011/2011-153.php and http://tinyurl.com/3flc5tt

Proteins made to order, http://www.nature.com/news/proteins-made-to-order-1.11767, Facebook Thread: https://www.facebook.com/groups/140995135944096/permalink/462694410440832/

Biology vs. The Machine – Part 3: Conversations about Synthetic Biology | The Tomorrow Project, http://uk.tomorrow-projects.com/2012/08/biology-vs-the-machine-part-3-conversations-about-synthetic-biology/, Facebook link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/140995135944096/permalink/443505809026359/

Single-molecule motor sits on a single-atom ball bearing, http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/12/single-molecule-motor-sits-on-a-single-atom-ball-bearing/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+arstechnica%2Findex+%28Ars+Technica+-+All+content%29, Facebook Thread: https://www.facebook.com/groups/140995135944096/permalink/484639044913035/

Genetic Roulette Movie Trailer, https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Vv96D_ZURzs#!, Facebook link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/140995135944096/permalink/484953461548260/

J. Craig Venter: Designing Life – 60 Minutes – CBS News, http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7076435n&tag=cbsnewsMainColumnArea.10

Programmed DNA Robot Goes Where Scientists Tell It | Nanotechnology, http://www.livescience.com/13308-programmed-dna-robot-scientists.html


Posted in BIO-INSPIRED TECHNOLOGY | 1 Comment

Kitzmiller v. Dover

Judge Jones is NEITHER a scientist qualified to render the opinion he wrote, or a theologian. Judge Jones is an attorney. Law has NOTHING to do with science or religion either. Dover was a case about CONSTITUTIONAL law as to whether student rights protected by the First Amendment Establishment clause were violated. Judge Jones did not cite science research papers to formulate his decision, he cited earlier LEGAL CASES that set precedents and guidelines that he had no choice other than overturning or following.

Mural at Dover
It was a student’s artwork in the form of a mural that ignited the dispute in Dover.

No testimony or evidence was offered in the Dover trial that set a definition of “religion” or “creationism.” No discussion was provided in the Dover decision as to what elements are required to determine creationism. [http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm]. The only evidence offered was that terminology related to creation was edited out of earlier versions of the textbook “Of Pandas and People.”

The ID Community is appalled at the lack of obtaining a fair and impartial hearing on the Dover case. The fact remains that ID Theory is very much 100% solid science, https://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/proof-as-to-why-id-is-science/, with plenty of peer-reviewed research papers to back it up, https://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/id-peer-reviewed-research-published-in-science-journals/. Michael Behe wrote a rebuttal to Dover as to why ID is valid science, http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=697.

The Discovery Institute has been rebutting what happened at Kitzmiller v. Dover just about every day for about 7 years now.

The court Opinion you linked cites legal cases, not science research papers. The standard of associating anything with creationism is extremely high. All those precedents are based upon jurisprudence and Constitutional law. It has nothing to do with science. You’re the liar because the Discovery Institute has disputed the Opinion for years now.

Here’s some examples of their rebuttals,

Law Review Article Agrees That Judge Jones Went Too Far, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/01/law_review_article_agrees_that003056.html

Judge Jones Admits the Activist Nature of Kitzmiller Ruling on Lehrer News Hour, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/judge_jones_admits_the_activis004518.html

Judge Jones’s Misguided NCSE-Scripted Kitzmiller Ruling and the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information,  http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/judge_joness_misguided_ncsescr031891.html

Did Judge Jones Get Anything Right in his Activist Ruling Against Intelligent Design? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/did_judge_jones_get_anything_r027721.html

Judge Jones and His Groupies, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/12/judge_jones_and_his_groupies014851.html

Two Years after Dover Intelligent Design Trial Darwinists, Like Judge Jones, Still Want to Have It Both Ways, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/12/the_logical_bankruptcy_of_the004668.html

Judge Jones’ Overreaching Diminishes Impact of Kitzmiller Ruling Upon Future Courts, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/03/judge_jones_overreaching_dimin003246.html

A good place to find out more information on this subject is to check out the Discovery Institute website here, http://www.discovery.org/csc/, go to “Search,” enter “Dover,” and click Enter. You will pull up tons of direct responses to issues related to the Kitzmiller v. Dover case.

The Dover trial is not much about science, but instead a legal dispute over First Amendment. To imply that Dover proves that ID is not science is absolutely a false assertion. The issue in Dover was whether Constitutional rights were being violated. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a court to determine whether ID is a valid science, and if it does the ruling is only be significant as a matter of law. Courts render LEGAL conclusions, not scientific ones. And, scientists can only generate scientific conclusions, not legal rulings.

Dr. Ken Miller on witness stand in Dover trial
Dr. Ken Miller testifies as an expert witness at Dover trial

Just like any other court, only LEGAL ISSUES were before the court to decide upon, not a scientific hypothesis. Yes, ID advocates presented their evidence of the validity of ID, but the evidence was only significant in offering the court guidance on ruling on Constitutional law. It would be very ignorant for someone to believe that the court system is set up for judges to decide the validity of a scientific hypothesis. There’s only one way to determine the validity of a hypothesis and that is OBSERVATION, HYPOTHESIS (research and prediction), Controlled EXPERIMENTATION, RESULTS/DATA, AND CONCLUSION. That’s science. Science is not law and it is not philosophy.

Michael Behe on Witness Stand

Just like my position that science should have nothing to do with philosophy, it is equally foolish to determine the validity of a scientific hypothesis by whether it violates a student’s 1st Amendment right. For one to hold this view would mean they also believe it is equally acceptable for a federal judge to determine whether quantum theory, string theory, or chaotic theory in a physics class could likewise violate a student’s rights because those theories also contemplate the supernatural.

Judge Jones is himself a Darwinist. Judge John E. Jones III of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania is one of the foremost defenders of evolution in public schools, ruling the teaching of intelligent design unconstitutional in public schools in the landmark Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case in 2005. On Saturday, June 7, 2008, Judge Jones was awarded the American Humanist Association’s Humanist Religious Liberty Award at the World Humanist Congress in Washington, DC. The following is adapted from his acceptance speech, http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/09_jan_feb/Jones.html. The Dover trial was not by any means heard by a fair an impartial trier of facts.

Dr. Ken Miller On Stand in Dover

Dr. Ken Miller testifies and expert witness at Dover trial.

Science is defined as the methodical acquisition of knowledge based upon obtaining empirical data from testing a falsifiable hypothesis formulated from predictions that arise from observation. Those results are presented in research papers that are then published in SCIENCE JOURNALS, not legal opinions that cite court cases. It is the scientific method that determines a scientific research field to be genuine science.  All the Dover decision accomplished was to render a legal determination for purposes of interpreting the First Amendment Establish Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  None of the legal rulings have anything to do with science.  Judges cite legal opinions, scientists cite research papers.  It’s unfortunate that some people are not able to distinguish the difference between what constitutes science and what comprises law.

Posted in KITZMILLER V. DOVER AND LEGAL ISSUES | 2 Comments

EXTRATERRESTRIALS MIGHT BE THE SOURCE OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN

THE INTEREST OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND THE DISCOVERY INSTITUTE IN THE SEARCH FOR EXTRATERRESTRIAL BEINGS

SETI

SETI probe for extraterrestrial contact

You can review the technical definitions of Intelligent Design here.  One of the very seriously taken conjectures presented by ID Theory is that space aliens are the source of intelligence that intervened to cause the complexity and diversity of life.  Genetic information had to come from somewhere, and it’s quite possible the source is extraterrestrial.  This is one of the most fundamental conjectures upon which ID Theory is based on.  To ask for relevance indicates gross ignorance regard ID Theory.  I recommend to anyone who would like to educate their self on this subject to Google the SETI program, and get brought up to speed on this topic.  ID has always been very interested in this research.

Exclusive: NASA Scientists Claims Evidence of Alien Life on Meteorite, http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/05/exclusive-nasa-scientists-claims-evidence-alien-life-meteorite/ and http://www.uncommondescent.com/origin-of-life/comments-from-contacts-about-the-possible-alien-life-form-discovery/

Are Earthlings From Mars? | NASA & Mars Exploration | Aliens & Search for Life, Evolution, http://www.space.com/11209-mars-earth-life-origins-evolution.html and http://t.co/E4ovLKI

Scientists make teleportation breakthrough, http://uk.news.yahoo.com/38/20110415/tsc-scientists-make-teleportation-breakt-98fda55.html

Exclusive: NASA Scientists Claims Evidence of Alien Life on Meteorite, http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/05/exclusive-nasa-scientists-claims-evidence-alien-life-meteorite/ and http://www.uncommondescent.com/origin-of-life/comments-from-contacts-about-the-possible-alien-life-form-discovery/

Are Earthlings From Mars? | NASA & Mars Exploration | Aliens & Search for Life, Evolution: http://www.space.com/11209-mars-earth-life-origins-evolution.html and http://t.co/E4ovLKI

Edgar Mitchell UFO interview on Kerrang Radio 23 July 2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhNdxdveK7c&feature=player_embedded

Alien life may huddle under hydrogen blankets, http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028124.800-alien-life-may-huddle-under-hydrogen-blankets.html

Weekend NewsFlash: US Astronomers Launch New Search for Advanced Alien Life on 86 Planets

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/05/-us-astronomers-launch-new-search-for-advanced-alien-life-on-86-planets.html

Weekend NewsFlash: US Astronomers Launch New Search for Advanced Alien Life on 86 Planets, http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/05/-us-astronomers-launch-new-search-for-advanced-alien-life-on-86-planets.html

[CovJump1] Sam Hadley

If a civilization endures for long enough, it might seek to migrate beyond its planetary system and colonize, or at least explore, the galaxy. The Milky Way is huge—about 100,000 light years across—and contains 400 billion stars, but given enough time, a determined civilization could spread far and wide. Our solar system is about 4.5 billion years old, but the galaxy is much older; there were stars and planets around long before Earth even existed. There has been plenty of time for at least one of those expansionary civilizations to reach our galactic neighborhood—a prospect that once led the physicist Enrico Fermi to famously utter “Where is everybody?” [Source].

Of course, there are other possible sources of the intelligence for Intelligent Design.  Read more about other possibilities here, https://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/proof-as-to-why-id-is-science/.

Dembski responds to Anti-ID article by SETI Astronomer, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/dembski_responds_to_antiid_art001699.html

Another Discovery Institute article, http://www.discovery.org/a/14751

 

 

Posted in SETI | 1 Comment