well i'm not going to be so polite.
you don't have to be aerodynamics engineer to see what is good and what isn't. look at the nature, natural selection shows us: almost 100% of every advanced living beings have central rigid support structure to support its body. like spine for the mammals.
Regardless of the implementation I think your metaphor is misguided. Living being have a rigid central support because it is efficient for it to protect its organs. No such thing on a kite.
I think it has to do with the implementation. Just because the kahoona flutters doesn't mean that all even strut kites do. The Ride is a two strut kites, and the canopy is very solid. It has a bit more flutter, but nothing bad at all. When you fly it you see.
I think has to do with the skills of the designer more than anything else. Taking the time to get it right.
I also think we have to move away from thinking a canopy that is made from light cloth will not ever flutter. It is in its nature. I do not believe that adding battens for every spot on a kite that distorts a bit is be good...instead take it out via design. I'd much rather have slight flutter than having a kite that is heavy, slow, and doesn't pack down.
Again it depends on what you use the kite for and I doubt doing the strut deflate test the Bill is talking about has much purpose..because then you are modifying the number of struts on a kite...instead of designing a kite for the specific amount of struts.
These are just tradeoffs, but my thought is that it depends on the kite. If you have a frame that naturally is flat in the centre, then fine with no middle strut at all. I think the Ride is a very good example of this. It is stable, flies super well, has relatively little flutter, and add to it..it is light and works well. I am confident that many brands will follow this trend. Two struts, no struts...it challenges the designers, and moves the industry forward. It is a whole different ball game.