The Constructal Law in Nature For Design It's Physics Folks

[_Philo Sofee]

A very important link showing how nature naturally gives grand and amazing design without any kind of intelligence of any sort. It is pure and beautiful physics. I think religious folk need to get with it and update their assumptions and unsupported wishful thinking concerning this fascinating topic. If they want us to think science supports their designing God, and their religion whether in Salt Lake City, Provo, or Oklahoma City, or wherever they reside, then they need to learn what actual science actually says and demonstrates with prodigious amounts of very fine and fascinating evidence from nature itself.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... /1545/1335

The full article with illustrations.
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 5.full.pdf

[_Meadowchik]

Fractals are cool.

[Guest]

No, sir, that's not physics. At least not physics as I know it.

I have no problem with the linked article's basic thesis. Like most if not all other physicists that I know, I believe that the laws of nature lead to intricate structures developing spontaneously, without any need for ongoing guidance by any designer.

I just don't really see anything in the article that goes beyond that vague statement of belief. Somehow, structures emerge. Simply saying that is not physics. I can't really speak for scientists in other fields, but for my money it's not any kind of science at all.

In fact to me it's even anti-scientific, because it seems to be a "principle of the gaps". We don't currently understand exactly how complicated structures seem to emerge so frequently, so these guys want to attribute the unexplained phenomena to a new fundamental principle which simply says that they have to happen. If that was good science we'd still be back with Aristotle's theory of gravity: things fall because they should fall.

(I'm quite surprised that this article got into Proc. Roy. Soc. B, but I note that it's in a special issue dedicated to the topic. Special issues sometimes do end up letting in lightweight papers, because they restrict peer review to a narrow circle of fans of the topic.)

[_Yahoo Bot]

I believe, as Sam Harris and I believe Dawkins has written, that these structures and gap-fillers result from the game-theory laws of nature. Of course, God may be the game.

[_Morley]

I believe, as Sam Harris and I believe Dawkins has written, that these structures and gap-fillers result from the game-theory laws of nature. Of course, God may be the game.

I never took you for a pantheist, Yahoo Bot.