We humans like to think we’re pretty good at design and technology – but we often forget that Mother Nature had a head start of 3.6 million years. Now, the way that geckoes climb walls, or hummingbirds hover, is at the centre of a burgeoning industry: biomimicry, the science of “reverse-engineering” clever ideas from the natural world. ¹

The above quote is from an article entitled, Biomimicry: why the world is full of intelligent design. Although this is a popular press item, there is the typical anthropomorphism applied to nature (i.e., mother nature). The 3.6 million years suggestion is a bit odd as well. Regardless, the article is interesting when considered from an ID perspective.

If a system is more advanced than anything we have developed, and requires reverse engineering principles in order to determine how it works, then it is likely the product of an intelligent designer. Whether or not you agree with that statement, one can see where a focus on replicating aspects of biological designs for improving our lives can be of great technological benefit. I’d like to see a lot more research money going to this type of work than to those who wish to construct fairy tales about natural history.

Several interesting applications are outlined in the article.

(1). Biomimicry: why the world is full of intelligent design

Throughout history man has looked to the natural world as the source of inspiration for some of the most exquisite inventions ever seen. Perhaps most famous of all is the Eiffel tower which, originally conceived by Gustav Eiffel as a temporary edifice, had at its foundations the design of already-existing natural structures notably the curvature of bones (Ref 1). Velcro was likewise inspired by already-existing biological contrivances as was perhaps Charles Paxton’s water lilly-based design of the Crystal Palace in London (Ref 2).

As I’ve written before, considering life from a teleological perspective can make this process more explicit leading to beneficial inventions that help the lives of people. Darwinists would have you to believe that such things as chance and necessity are capable of producing biological technology that is beyond our ability to emulate. From an ID perspective, when an apparent design flaw is discovered, the questions do not stop there. In other words, Darwinisim is a science stopper, because it’s more important to them to have ‘evidence’ to hold out that their theory is true. Taking an ID perspective, a more cautious approach would ensue, and the issue would be examined in greater detail before it is concluded that a ‘design flaw’ has been discovered.

There are two major issues at work here. The first issue is that thinking in terms of design in biology can focus researchers on practical applications and inventions with likely benefit to humanity. The second issue is that the scientific process of understanding the function of biological processes can continue to a deeper level without stopping with an apparent design flaw, which would be attributed to the happenstance nature of evolution. The second issue is important in terms of understanding biological processes, which could lead to new treatments for disease.

The article concludes with:

CEO and president of Promega Corporation, Bill Linton, once remarked that “our most well designed human endeavors can only approximate- and rarely surpass- the elegant precision of nature” (Ref 8). Indeed crediting evolution for the engineering of complex systems that lie beyond the capacity of human minds to fully conceive seems thoroughly misplaced. Moreover there is something deeply telling about the observation that the natural world has machines that we, as intelligent agents, are so ready to copy. Defenders of Intelligent Design theory have of course provided their own take on this singular fact, concluding that the work of an intelligent designer and not the blind walk of evolution lies at the heart of biological complexity.

Indeed, crediting evolution for the engineering of complex systems is thoroughly misplaced, and impedes scientific progress in ways that are truly important. That is, applied science is impeded by a happenstance view of natural history.

The site documents 15 of the Coolest things that are based on God’s designs [my words, not theirs]. My point of view is that ID researchers would have more of an orientation toward things that might actually be useful now rather than on processes that purportedly take millions of years to have any effect. Some of the things documented at the site include: velcro, passive cooling, gecko tape, whalepower wind turbines, and more.

Scientists have recently discovered,⁽¹⁾ that ribosomes have a “proofreading step,” which is said to recognize errors shortly after making them and has an analog to a computer’s delete button. 

It turns out, the Johns Hopkins researchers say, that the ribosome exerts far tighter quality control than anyone ever suspected over its precious protein products which, as workhorses of the cell, carry out the very business of life.

“What we now know is that in the event of miscoding, the ribosome cuts the bond and aborts the protein-in-progress, end of story,” says Rachel Green, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator and professor of molecular biology and genetics in the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. “There’s no second chance.” Previously, Green says, molecular biologists thought the ribosome tightly managed its actions only prior to the actual incorporation of the next building block by being super-selective about which chemical ingredients it allows to enter the process.

Joey Campana discusses this subject (more complex than previously thought) in detail⁽²⁾:

“More complex than once thought”

 

 

A revealing reason that Darwinian thought has not been helpful is that it tends to see biology in simplis-tic terms that are, well, too simple. When searching Google for phrases such as “more complex than pre-viously thought,” over a million-and-a-half hits cur-rently result. Some things that were “more complex than thought” from the first few pages include re-search findings in the following areas:

1. communication among cells
2. the oldest animal genomes
3. bird flight orientation
4. genes
5. patterns of neuronal migration during cortical development
6. the relationship between evolution and embry-onic development
7. p53 ubiquitination and degradation
8. human memory
9. the fetal immune system
10. the mouse genome
11. visual processing in the brain
12. regulation of neuronal survival in the retina
13. COX enzymes
14. the human genome
15. the female human body
16. cerebellar circuitry and learned behaviors
17. estrogen receptors
18. neural induction (list truncated)

 ….

Currently, “less complex than once thought” only returns two hits. The data coming out of the labs would suggest that we begin to expect that things are more complex. We would stand a greater chance of being correct.

So, the science of biology would be well served by a paradigm shift focusing on design analogs and assuming design rather than assuming chance. When an information recording and trascription system is involved in biology, scientists should first start with all they know about information recording and transcription systems. Error detection and correction is an integral part of these types of systems designed by humans, and engineers can also benefit from the analysis of the machines of life.

(1). The Ribosome: Perfectionist Protein Maker Trashes Errors
(2). http://www.arn.org/docs/article_the_design_isomorph_and_isomorphic_complexity.pdf

From its beginnings, the empirical study of life has been earmarked by the idea that tiny machines are at work in living tissues. The discovery of protein machines and the illumination of the genetic code during the 20th century revealed a profound similarity between many aspects of technological devices and biological components, and this fulfilled many of the musings of early biological thinkers. The stronger similarities between biology and engineering are so clear that there are pervasive cases of design isomorphs, where precise technological designs are found to preexist in living organisms. This isomorphic congruence has been thought by many to be a mere coincidental outcome of undirected evolutionary processes, making the similarities superfluous to scientific practice, and inconsequential to the question of the cause of life.

The author also details several design isomorphs and explains in detail how considering biological components from a design perspective can be an effective strategy in understanding biology. Likewise, utilizing the tried and true methods of design oriented fields (e.g, engineering) in tandem with considering the analogous nature of machines designed by humans, we can greatly increase our understanding of how biological systems work. Reverse engineering was mentioned as one specific approach (e.g., remove a part to see what happens to get an idea of its function). Also, when one considers biological systems as analogous technology, it may lead to breakthroughs in applied technological science. This has already happened in a number of areas, but I won’t detail those things in this brief introduction.

The author also has started compiling a list of design isomorphs.⁽²⁾ I am planning to work with some other IDers to develop a database of design isomorphs, which may be useful for inventors as well as biological scientists….to be continued….

(1). The Design Isomorph and Isomorphic Complexity

(2). Catalog of Design Isomorphs in the Wild

Mphuthumi Ntabeni at The Southern Cross writes:

Newton, Faraday, Maxwell and Copernicus referred to the Creator in their scientific writings. No one accused them of being unscientific because of that. There’s no rule that compels science to have a materialist outlook, it’s just an incident of history. (1)

I have yet to see any evidence that convinces me that scientific progress will be inhibited in any way by referencing notions of a designer or even God. Nor have I seen any evidence that is not just as easily explained from an ID or even a Creationist perspective as compared to a naturalistic evolution perspective. So far, I see Creationism as having the most explanatory power and ID as focusing on narrow range of observations and scientific phenomena. Both ID and Creation Science are scientific disciplines.

I must also say that I have yet to see how the theory of naturalistic evolution, on a macro scale, has ever contributed to applied science. The concept of abiogenesis has not contributed to applied science. The Big Bang Theory has not contributed to applied science. In short, the notion that Godless science leads to progress has no legs to stand on. Perhaps it will evolve those legs in the next several billions of years, but I won’t be holding my breath.

(1). My case for intelligent design, The Southern Cross, Mphuthumi Ntabeni, Nov. 9, 2008

So, consider for a moment, the techniques of reverse engineering. A scientist attempting to develop an artificial limb may consider how a human’s limb functions and its design characteristics. Darwinian evolution has nothing to contribute here, and basically almost nowhere in the realm of applied science (apart from simple natural selection algorithms).

I recently ran across an interesting article comparing computer technology to the human brain. (1) There are those who are doubtful that we will ever be able to match the engineering feat that is the human brain. I am one of those people. At every point along the way there have been different prevailing analogies for the functioning of the human brain. All have proved insufficient, just as the computer analogy also proves insufficient. However, this reductionistic framework is not without implications. It is a viewpoint that leads to further reductionistic and materialistic ways of viewing the world.

A comment attached to the bottom of the article was also amusing:

Get real. Think. If design principles were active in our creation, then there was a Designer who employed those principles. This includes the hardware and the software. You would not be able to consciously think about anything without an embedded BiOS (Bible Input-Output System) that the Designer built in, which gives you the preconditions for intelligibility of the world. Everyone has it. You couldn’t run the thinking application without it. But just as a good computer can be tricked into running malware (malicious software), a created being can be tricked into thinking its brain is a product of evolution. That is necessarily false. The brain could not even run that malware without the BiOS.
When you’re infected with this deep-seated, entrenched virus, or any of the other malware that information terrorists inserted into the global shipment, the only solution is to recognize that fact, then wipe, reinstall, and patch. Fortunately, outstanding technical support is just a call away (Isaiah 55:6-9) – and it’s free, straight from the Designer himself. Operations Manuals are also freely available by request (see BlueLetterBible and Bible Gateway, or that book in your hotel room drawer).

(1). http://creationsafaris.com/crev200809.htm#20080914a

And yet, along with Skinner and many others, our education system has been heavily influenced by these atheistic ideas. As Mynym pointed out, at the end of his comment, our schools have become battle zones, where parents can’t be assured that their children will return home safely or, if they do, educated. Our education system, as well as our society, is despotically run by material science, the government and corporate agendas (who, by the way, are in the sack with each other), which have little to do with learning, values, ethics or morality.

Indeed! John Dewey was a psychologist who ended up being very influential in the American educational system. Unfortunately my field bears a lot of the responsibility for both advancements and ills with the modern educational system. Based on my experience with patients, the special educational system, eventually largely developed out of the work of Dewey, and other psychologists, has show much success. However, the general educational principles advanced by psychologists have variously resulted in both negative and positive effects on our culture and the learning of children.

Dewey purported,

“while honoring the important role that religious institutions and practices played in human life, rejected belief in any static ideal, such as a theistic God. Dewey felt that only scientific method could reliably further human good.” (1)

And as DB continues,

Material science wants students who have been been fully indoctrinated into a belief system which denies anything greater than man and, of course, science: the scientist cries, “Where will the tax supported funding come from if someone blows the whistle on our weak theories and science adventures?”

Research on the ‘focus of research’ (meta-research?), has basically shown that it follows the funding. Not only that, but the research outcomes tend to support the viewpoints of the funding source. This oftentimes, has an unconscious basis in human psychology, and needs to be considered in the “critical thinking,” that the commenter Carl Sachs has noted as very important. This pertains to biology, evolution, psychology, and medicine. Although I am not against “basic science,” the ‘where the rubber hits the road’ aspect of research (applied science), ultimately bears more importance in my mind. I pay taxes, and I think I do demand my tax dollars produce some potential real world benefits to human beings as DB has stated in a different way before. So, I continue to be interested, in a critical sense, in the applied value that naturalistic evolution has shown to society. In other words, how have folks living their lives on a day-to-day basis benefited from the highly speculative, and largely less than correlation research, on naturalistic evolution?

The design concepts of protein molecules to realize various functional mechanisms by their three-dimensional architecture are quite different from those we design by our engineering technique with bulk materials. Folding of single polymer chain into some three-dimensional structures gives a huge amount of freedom and flexibility in both function and structure. Individual atoms are used as functional parts, and this is the essential feature that makes biological macromolecules distinct from artificial machines at present. The design concepts have to be well understood and learned for future nanotechnology applications. So far, for the flagellar motor, the deeper our insights get into the mechanism, the deeper the mystery becomes. Now the mystery of conformational switching of the filament has been solved, and in terms of the number of protein molecules, the filament makes up 99% of the entire flagellum, it does not mean 99% of the mystery is solved. It is the motor mechanism that is even more difficult to understand. (1)

The more that is learned about such things, the deeper the mystery becomes. The level of complexity and design increases with increasing knowledge on the subject. In my line of work, I have to evaluate complex and simple trends that my patients exhibit. I evaluate one complex trend of science as forever marching toward the realization of increased complexity of biological processes and systems. Ocam’s razor seems to perpetually slice the wrong way in biology. Now back to the flagellum.

It rotates at around 20,000 rpm, at energy consumption of only around 10^-16 W and with energy conversion efficiency close to 100%. Prof. Namba’s research group is going to reveal the mechanism of this highly efficient flagellar motor that is far beyond the capabilities of artificial motors.

I also recommend taking a look at the pictures and diagrams with the story. Now this simple little bacteria dwarfs anything we can design. We can come nowhere near 100% energy efficiency with a motor, let alone build one out of individual atoms and molecules. I know I didn’t expand my notion of Ocam’s razor slicing the wrong way in biology, but that is worthy of being expanded in another post.

References:

(1). Revealing the mystery of the bacterial flagellum