THE GENIUSES at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids), have apparently abandoned any pretext of scientific methodology when discerning the existence of Intelligent Design (ID) in nature.
Previously, they followed the lead of their guru, Michael Behe, and at least pretended to have observed the presence of a magical characteristic they call irreducible complexity before making a declaration of design. Now it seems that they’re done with that. They have unashamedly reverted to the mentality of savages who declare that everything is a miraculous design.
Well, we don’t want to be too harsh in our judgments. There’s still a standard to be applied. As we understand it, in order to be declared “designed,” the feature has to be something we haven’t thought of yet.
That’s our reading of a new article by Casey Luskin, gracelessly titled As Engineers Turn to Marine Biology to Improve Wing, Turbine, and Armor Designs, the Media Tries to Quash Intelligent Design Overtones. The idea Casey talks about is that engineers are improving their technology by adopting some useful features that have been discovered in the animal kingdom. For example, he cites an article in Science Daily and writes:
… engineers are turning to marine biology for insight into building better turbine blades and wings. The article reports that “[t]he shape of whale flippers with one bumpy edge has inspired the creation of a completely novel design for wind turbine blades. This design has been shown to be more efficient and also quieter, but defies traditional engineering theories.” Apparently small bumps on the leading edge of the flippers create vortices as the whale moves through the water, and this uneven flow “help[s] to generate more lift without the occurrence of stall, as well as enhancing manoeuvrability and agility.”
We haven’t checked Casey’s quotes, but one should always be alert to the possibility of, shall we say … inaccuracies, whenever creationists use quoted material. Anyway, upon learning that whale flippers have provided a useful idea for improving turbine blades, what does Casey’s mind come up with? Here it is, with bold added for emphasis:
The authors of the article seem cognizant of the unwanted design overtones, and thus lead off the article with an otherwise superfluous evolutionary spin: “Sea creatures have evolved over millions of years to maximise efficiency of movement through water.”
What design overtones? What is Casey talking about? Can anyone figure this guy out?
Then, to buttress his “conclusion,” Casey ominously hints at other attempts “to quash the design overtones of engineers mimicking nature,” and he cites another article, with another biologically inspired engineering development (body armor). Finally, he wraps it all up this way:
Blind and unguided processes created “exactly what we need today”? Well aren’t we all just that lucky.
So, class — what do we conclude from all of this? [Hands go up.] Ah, you in the back — what’s your conclusion? A maroon? Please, let’s not go there. We’re trying to keep this blog on an elevated level.