Biologists need engineers and…
by bipod…engineers need biologists. So says David Low in the most recent edition of Convergence a premiere journal for Systems Biology. Very well said and something the intelligent design community needs to help fascillitate.
Here's an excerpt from the journal:
Khammash and collaborators including Hana El-Samad, who recently earned her doctorate in mechanical engineering at UCSB, have used mathematical modeling to show how the complex workings of the heat-shock [of E. coli] response reflect features that make the protein repair fast, robust and efficient. "It is how, if you had a good engineer, the process would be designed," he says.
Good engineer? Bet you won't see that quote appear in any anti-teleologist's BuzzBox. Imagine what would happen if the bad/sloppy design argument had pervasive counter-examples?
Systems biology is great for intelligent design theorists because it interprets the data under a design-theoretic model - as if these things *were* designed. The mere methodology stands in favor of intelligent design and validates those who are sincerely interested in the development of a teleological science.
Sure, systems biologists can work under a certain methodology (engineering/systems/design) and then, wink, wink (NCSE style) give their necessary props to the neo-Darwinian mechanism. But, given enough time, parsimony will do its work (cutting out that unecessary hypothesis, Sir), and it will seem more than reasonable to take the assumptions of the methodology as indicative of reality itself.
July 22nd, 2005 at 12:55 pm
Here
"An engineer said it… so, " nuff said "
-most any ole evolutionary biologist
Comment by island — July 22, 2005 @ 12:55 pm
July 23rd, 2005 at 5:52 am
I've actually modified the contents of that link substatially since I posted it, and visits to the rest of my young weblog are welcome:
http://evolutionarydesign.blog...
I think that the "intent" that's inherent to design is physically definable as the sum of expressed bias toward satisfying a pre-existing physical need.
This is an acceptable scientific definition because it applies to all objects that express a predominant inclination, and to assume that human constructs aren't simple manifestions of the same physics that governs everything else is arrogant beyond belief.
Comment by island — July 23, 2005 @ 5:52 am
July 23rd, 2005 at 4:47 pm
Hey bipod,
Engineers rely on scientists to puzzle out the regularities of reality. It is the characterization of those regularities that engineers rely on to produce reliable systems that result in technology. Those characterizations offer a means to build bridges that don't fail, airplanes that fly, medicines that work, etc. However, engineers more than most live in a world of reality as well. If their designs don't work, people die. This creates a sensibility to the complexity of design that many people don't often face. It gives engineers a perspective on design that results in humility. The complexity of details that are so important to functional systems is daunting. Relying on chance is not an option. It takes all an engineer can muster to create something that will work. When observing biological systems all design engineers are in awe. Those artifacts absolutely shout design. To attribute those systems to chance is ludicrous. The beauty, functionality, and purpose we see in biological systems can only be attributed to some sort of intelligence.
Comment by Steve Petermann — July 23, 2005 @ 4:47 pm
July 23rd, 2005 at 5:16 pm
island,
if you develop your blog a bit more to discuss what I call "intrinsic design" or what you call design IN nature, we'll link to it in our blogroll. i do like the direction of your thoughts: "sum of expressed bias toward satisfying a pre-existing physical need."
i'd have to disagree with you about the following comments however, and think you need to defend the statement rather than just assert it: "to assume that human constructs aren't simple manifestions of the same physics that governs everything else is arrogant beyond belief."
the problem is that you need to get more clear about what you mean by "the same physics" because every physics that I know has no room for teleological concepts like "goal" or "intention" or "aim" or "motivation." And what exactly is a physical need? Do rocks have physical needs? Do all physical things have physical needs? If not, then what is it about some physical systems that gives them "needs" Are needs pervasive or rare?
Comment by bipod — July 23, 2005 @ 5:16 pm