Comments on: Turning nature's design into scientific breakthrough

A start-up is trying to make everything from PC fans to water purifiers more efficient with a design inspired by nature.
Images: From nature to the lab

[newcreation]

so why are people so think intelligent design isnt a concept?

so many times technology imitates nature,so how come no one sees there can be intelligent design?.
by the way there thing technology will never be able to duplicate in nature.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Looking at it in another way...

Nature is extremely stupid, it took millions of
years to get to this point, we've only had a few
hundred. There are still some stupid designs in
nature that will eventually correct themselves
through natural selection...sooner or later.

[Mad Dog - Chi]

ID is a belief

Itelligent design is a belief that can neither be proved nor disproved. It is not science.

(And who could believe that man could be the product of anything intelligent?)

[Macsaresafer]

Intelligent Design could

be 100% correct, but that isn't enough for Science. Nothing in
Science can be taken on faith. Everything must be tested and
retested, and that's where Intelligent Design fails to qualify since it
cannot be tested. If you want it taught, teach it in church or
possibly a philosophy class, but science class is the the wrong
place.

[sancat]

science is not about what "can" be

Science is not about the things that "can" be; but about the things that cannot be in a different way.

Science is truthful until somebody proves it wrong.
Inteligent Design is not absolutely impossible, yet, it might never be proved, because the day it is, religion cease to be based on faith, and becomes a science.

And a religion which requires or presents proof, ceases to be of interest.

The fact that you "can" be eating an icecream at this moment does not prove you actually are.

[pjianwei]

ID says "superior being" designs what happen it nature.

Evolution says "nature" designs what happen in nature. although design is not the correct word since nature do not have a design plan. Basically it is just a matter of who or what create whatever that is out there. So why bother spending so much time and effort to fight over a "who and what" question, when there are much more important and beneficial things in life to do?

[Scopip]

nothing new here.

We've also been mimmicking nature forever. This is nothing new.

Engineers have been dealing with vortex's for a long time.

So whats the breakthrough? did i miss something?

[Macsaresafer]

The breakthrough is subtle,

but it's there if you look at the shape of the blades in the picture.
Most fan blades radiate straight out from the center. These radiate
out and curve up (in the image) as you travel out and towards the
back of the blade. You can almost see it being more efficient.

[heystoopid]

the problem is

the problem is, that we are still learning from nature, since nature has had several billion of years to solve its problems, where as poor man at best has been working on the basic problems since the industrial age of the 18th century, to modify nature to suit our own needs!

beware, of those that choose, not to think outside the square, and rigidly take everything that is printed and taught ,as an absolute law, for any man who goes around with head in the sand, will never be able to see anything beyond his nose, nor will he ever, be able to learn anything from his mistakes(like one man I know, who could not do even a simple workplace restructure, has now ran away from trying too fix what he did not understand in the first place, but is still perpetuating his flawed concepts in another country, all because his ideas were set in concrete, and people had to conform to his incomplete and inaccurate assessment of real systems)

Oh well, that's life!

[ThePenguin]

Rabbits and ID

If ID is true, then ID has a sense of humor.

Rabbits are so intelligently designed they must eat their own feces to gather enough nutrition.

I was told by a Kansas Science teacher (worked with him in Kansas at a tech company), that Evolution is a farce because all of the dolphins would have drowned before they could evolve a closable blowhole.

I believe on The Onion they "reported" that there will be a new "Theory of Intelligent Falling" because we don't know what gravity is.

[ThePenguin]

Flat Earth Theory

The same type of people who once believed that the earth was flat are the same proponents of ID.

I have a relative who went through 8 years of seminary to become a Catholic priest. He told me that Evolution is not contested. He says that we evolved from whatever to a point at which we were "given the spark" or a soul from God.

Reasonable I think.

ID is a belief among the uninformed.

Evolution is used and relied on everyday in the real scientific circles. You can believe in Evolution and be a religious person, but don't try to say that ID is science, it is nothing more than the Falwell/Robertson set trying to salvage their faith from the reality of evolution.

Keep ID in church where it belongs.

[ThePenguin]

Reality

About the ice cream...

Whether we are actually eating an ice cream or not is about reality. Reality is created and destroyed every time we blink.

Your reality is not my reality, which is great. But if someone tries to deny that your reality exists, that is the problem.

Reality is tenous at best, unless that ice cream is coconut from Maggie Moo's. <grin>

[ThePenguin]

ID is a Concept, not Science

I don't think that anyone is denying that ID is a CONCEPT, I think the problem is when it tries to be SCIENCE.

Star Trek is a concept, until we acutally have warp drive, then it is science.

[Bregalag]

Exactly

Science is about what is repeatable, can be done in the present, again and again.

History is about what we still have a record of happening in the past. Forensics is a related field about what happened in the past when we don't have a eye-witness account (or we need correlative evidence)

Philosophy is about knowledge itself.

Religion or "World view studies" is about how all of these things taken together is used to make sense of the world.

Most people I hope wouldn't have a problem with these definitions.



This issue I think is that there is an argument between two competing "world views" (the religion families: theism vs. materialism) about "origins" (historical models of the beginning of everything: Intelligent Design vs. Macro Evolution) but rather than taking place in religion class, or history class, as one would suppose would be proper. It's taking place in science class.


The reason the debate gets so fierce is that neither side can truly allow the other's model to stand. A strict materialist can't entertain the possibility that "someone who could be called God" to either exist or create the time-space-matter universe we live in.

On the other hand, most theists I know if they were honest would hesitate to believe in a being "who could be called God" who might be so unloving as to have designed and implemented life as we know it, through a process that is driven by pain, suffering, and death.

My question is this, which group tends to be open minded enough to try on the other side's way of thinking? I'm not talking about the rank and file (who are usualy split half and half with the closeminded group taking up most of the 'lay' air time). I'm talking about the intilectual elite of each comunity.

[patrix47]

Similar concepts can be seen in a Chaos Theory view of the world

This is an interestng article. My hat is off to Mr. Harman bot for
maintaining the insight afforded to him by his observations as a
youth, and to his practical applications as a business man.

I would suggest for another interesting view consider the "spiral
observations" of this article in terms of general Chaos Theory.
(For a primer please see this article: http://www.imho.com/
grae/chaos/chaos.html)

The reason why I suggest the chaos article is that the lines of
divergence (from the initial divergence until the first wave of new
repition) predicted by the population graph in the Chaos article
are the sam dimensionsional lines which appear in Mr. Harman's
spirals. I just find it interesting that in a world of steady-states,
bell curves, and repeating cycles that something as obvious as a
spiral can re-occur across mutliple disciplines and nobody really
notices. But hey, what do I know - I am just a computer geek on
my second cup of coffee.

[Blito]

Loop Qantum Theory

We haven't really identified what works and what doesn't in today's society so everything is too partial like we only did paper and plastic recycling in the past 15 years and that's really it. Oil, infrastructure, neighborhood design, community, ALL too linear still not thinking about the whole picture. One neighborhood is nice but slammed against the other with no park or farm in between has proved disastrous for our suburbs and health. It?s not just oil but that?s a large part of it.
Everything is made from oil from plastics to fuel and there is nowhere to recycle it.
Science has thought too linearly too and now that's hopefully changing with things like Loop Quantum Theory. I think the universe is more like a wheel then just shooting outward.

[Earl Benser]

Is currently mostly smoke and mirrors.....

Not many physicists give it any credibility. And it typically is
characterized as one more bit of quantum foam. Whatever, it needs
a lot of work before it has any claim to being a legitimate part of
physics. That's a LOT of work....

http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/16/11/9

[chart321]

intelligent design is a concept! It's just not Science

What really is important about Harman and Pax Scientifics? work is the accelerated advancement of designs based upon real world biosphere observations. That our Planet holds the key to our civilization(s) survival and evolution, and that science and industry can meld an approach that could forge our next steps to diminish our impact on the natural world.

[nohn mcmanus]

spiral scientific breakthrough

Is it new?.

Take a look at Tesla's turbine design.

cheers: john McManus