The phrase, as used by the authors and by myself, mean that the information as to how moisture-acquiring silk is constructed has been identified by a process of reverse engineering, and that this information can now be used (and has been used) to engineer something similar (but not yet as good as the natural product). So, the principles relate to the work of an actual designer.
I’ll post another blog on design principles in the natural world and you can have another look at the concept there.

Seversky @ 12
But there are examples of natural selection acting on mutations and filtering out the beneficial from the detrimental in given environments.

We all know this. If you want a useful exchange, you must realise that it is possible to analyse the significance of the empirical findings. It is not only ID scientists who think that natural selection has been hyped up as a mechanism. There are many others who are convinced that there must be some other processes that can take evolution a lot further than Darwinian mechanisms. Furthermore, they can see that the building of complexity takes more than incremental selection of mutations – and this is why complex specified information is a key to making progress in understanding what the issues really are.

Refuting The “Bad Design” Vs. Intelligent Design Argument – William Lane Craig – video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/.....ane_craig/

off topic:

I just remembered that it is Pi day:

3:14

which is Albert Einstein’s birthday;

This related website has the complete working out of the math of Pi, e in Gen 1:1 and John 1:1 in the Bible, in the Hebrew and Greek languages:
http://www.biblemaths.com/pag03_pie/

Eulers Number – God Created Mathematics – video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/.....thematics/

And it means much more than that. It means: “I am sending another message addressed to your reason saying that: “I am” and that: “I am Good and I am a Marvelous Designer” and “I am Excellent”…

We can see what a marvelous designer He is. There’s the cancers caused by irreparable damage to our fragile genes, there’s the diseases caused when our marvelous immune system turns against the body it’s supposed to be defending, there’s a spontaneous abortion rate that could be as much as 50% of all conceptions, there’s brain dementias, developmental disorders, flesh-eating bugs. I could go on but you get the idea. Maybe He exists. Maybe, in His own mind, He’s “good” and “excellent” and a “marvelous designer” but, seriously, this is past a joke.

and I gave you reason so that my message is unequivocal about my existence and my divine power and those that pretend that My message is not clear have no excuse”.

Oh, we get the message alright but it’s not the message a lot of people would like it to be.

Also, I don’t care that you think its neo-Paleyism versus paleo-Paleyism. It is an eternal true-Paleyism.

I’m sure you don’t care what I think. It will probably not make the slightest difference. You will go on believing what gives you comfort and hope and that is your right.

But if you want to infer anything about your God or the designer you need to look at His creation as a whole, not just the good bits.

“Yes. I indeed presuppose that it is not possible to know those things.”

but is it a “label” when you admit it?

If a specific point is being discussed, you have to deal with it in context.

I get the sense, that no matter what detail is being debated, the evidence for the ID side becomes all-encompassing and global at some point in the debate, just as in this one.

The ID side will have to stay focused and in context if we’re going to get this debate into a public forum and resolved, so that students in the future don’t have to suffer through a debate they clearly don’t yet have the information to decide themselves.

You have not shown much of evidence. You have quoted many biblical quotes and you have quoted stuff about the fine-tuning of the universe.

And I did not say that I do want to discuss these things. Where have I done so?

But thank you for labeling me close-minded.

I had a very specific question: Did InVivoVeritas claim to know the mind of the designer?

Then, after your posts, I had some other questions: Do you belive to know the mind of the designer and do you believe it is actually the christian god?

Those things are easy to clarify and they don’t rely in any way on my intentions. Nor, by the way, do they rely on the fact if I am a candian or if O’Leary pays for my salary with her taxes.

So what I can gather from your post is that you (and probably InVivoVeritas) break very significanlty from many people on this board. Mung, for example, was dismayed by a post of O’Leary that addressed just that issue of the designer being god.

So, it seems that in your case discussion is extremely difficult. Not only have you decided that design is in virtually everything complex we see on this earth. But you also decided as to who the designer is. And you also already decided as to what that designers mind is.

It is, sadly, not a surprise to me, but it is shocking nonetheless to see this so openly admitted on this board.