I’m working hard qualifying graduates at the moment, and don’t have much time for what I like doing – but here is a thought I’ve had whilst browsing ResearchID .
ID Predictions, specifically Biomimicry: “The technological successes of Biomimicry will continue.” . The success of Biomimicry as a design technique would only support ID rather than Evolution if it was already proven that ID was the better way of explaining the success (or lack thereof) of lifeforms. To link biomimicry to ID looks alot like a case of begging the question against evolutionists.
Another way to put it is this: I could just as easily say that evolutionary theory predicts the continued technolgical success of Biomimicry – presumably this is because I think that it works because of evolution, not in spite of it. Would I be begging the question against ID researchers? Maybe, maybe not, but they are only obliged to accept the validity of my prediction to the extent that they accept that specices are successful due to evolution.
In the end I suspect that Biomimicry can’t add much to either side of the debate, because how we interpret it’s success is already influenced by ( to the point of being contingent on), what we already believe.