Is Intelligent Design An Open Movement?

I would like to see a thread on here that will encourage more discussion on what the current proponents of Intelligent Design are open to. In other words many opponents rightly point out that most advocates of ID are Christian. And even further damning is the history of the ID movement being originated in Creationism.It seems to me this whole debate is between Christians and Atheist on what is and isn't real science. I think the sticking point here is the word Design.Design implies a total lack of creativity and to me is just as cold as Richard Dawkins summary of natural selection...""Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators."When a Penn and Teller episode of BullSh* Penn ask Teller what is the Creationist response to Dawkins Teller hits him with a Bible.The Intelligent Design movement claims to be different.But given the history of the Discovery Institute and the famous Wedge Document many are justifiably skeptical.The truth is Design is cold to me anyway whether it is by a God with a predetermined outcome that ignores all the suffering involved until the end ...or simply nature selecting for survival traits.I do not believe we live in a cold Godless Universe. But I have concluded instead that the Universe is alive and as more awareness manifest the Universe becomes more creative. The suffering in this process is attributed to the fact that to eliminate suffering that the Universe must become self reflective and aware of itself through us and other sentient beings.Is the Intelligent Design Movement open to Pantheism or other view points beside Christianity?I feel like I must choose a false Dichotomy in this debate between a meaningless Universe with no room for souls,freewill etc
or belief in some Tribal Deity of the Canaanites.Are other viewpoints besides the Christian and the Atheist welcome or given consideration? Or is the debate of ID just a battle of Christian values versus Nihilism/Materialism?Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Typo. The last sentence did not render a complete thought. So I expanded the last sentence for clarity.

I probably shouldn't reply yet to this post because I have not yet read the thread you have suggested. But Is ID properly pursued sounds like the question "Is ID proper science?" I will now go read this thread to see if I am wrong. A little backwards I know but I wanted to keep this thread going if possible and I wanted to thank you for the welcome. I will be back to this thread after I read the is ID properly pursued thread either with an apology if my question is already covered or if it is not covered I will request to keep this thread open. And hopefully encourage replies. I will also post my thoughts on the thread you suggested here if I do not think that thread addresses my questions I proposed here. Thank you again for listening.

Ok I see my post on the thread you suggested but it is a quote on message 78 on the last page. Not sure how this forum works. I see my original post here on this thread but I can not find it on is ID properly pursued thread. So I am hoping to keep this thread open so people will post to my questions specifically. Now that I read message 78 I am going to go back and read this rest of the Properly Pursued thread to see if I missed anything.

From what I am reading there is little hope for ID as a Science. I was listening to a debate with William Craig and he tried to claim without God there was no Objective meaning to life. To me this is the wrong use of the word "Objective".Ironically if all meaning is given to the Universe as part of a Design then we are nothing but machines. So to me he is saying there are values or meaning in life because it is all pre-designed and that means there are values that are objective.This is absurd.He wants absolute values and absolutism is the other face of nihilism. You simply cant scientifically analyze "values". So you can not apply the word objective to values the same way you do to reality itself. Values are a smoke screen for a religious agenda. We do not need values at all except maybe as guidelines. We are conscious aware beings that are tuned into suffering. This will automatically lead to compassion if we let it. So where is the need for values?I don't need a law giver because I do not need laws. Laws are for prosecuting the guilty. They have no deterrent value in themselves. Maybe the punishments have some deterrent value but values based on punishment and reward do not create any spiritual growth. My point is the idea of Sovereignty of Kings and Divine Laws have nothing to do with the origin of the Universe.So to me the whole idea of ID based on Christian Morality is a nonsequitar and certainly isn't science. If Pantheism is true as I believe it is then I am not sure what sort of science could prove this level of reality.Quantum Physics comes close but Physicist doubt the reality they are observing. To me physics is currently more about doubt than observation. After all observation directly affects reality yet most scientist observe and deny the consequences of the new Metaphysics that the Quantum world opens up.This Quantum level is not the Supernatural as Theist insist because it is not magic.But this level of reality transcends what we have known as natural reality up until Einstein.Yet some Physicist are so close minded to change they will go as far as saying that Quantum Physics do not even describe reality. But instead QM is seen as just another branch of statistics.Until this changes Metaphysics and Science will never be Unified and reality will simply be described in terms of the illusions we accept versus the illusions we reject.Thoughts? Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : ClarityEdited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Missing word

I would like to post an part of an article from my Blog that I wrote about Design where I challenge the idea that there is a difference between A "Watchmaker" (God) or a "Blind" Watchmaker (Natural Selection) . To me the outcome is the same and neither is proven. And they are both pushed with political agendas behind them to keep the Sheeple in line.Designer GenesTheological determinism is the idea that there is a god who determines all that humans will do, either by knowing their actions in advance, via some form of omniscience[5] or by decreeing their actions in advance.[6] The problem of free will, in this context, is the problem of how our actions can be free if there is a being who has determined them for us in advance.Biological determinism is the idea that all behaviors, beliefs, and desires are fixed by our genetic endowment and our biochemical makeup, the latter of which is affected by both genes and environment.Compatibilism tries to reconcile Determinism with Moralism.In order to evaluate the truth of this statement you must choose a starting point. The difficulty of this is very telling. If you are an atheist perhaps you read the writings of Daniel C Dennet on Compatibilism. Then you might question how Determinism can possibly lead to Moralism. It is true that without Compatibilism it is not possible to get to Moralism from Determinism. That is there is no direct link between Moralism and Determinism.But the science of Behaviorism and religion of Theology both have the same goal of Social Engineering.And not surprisingly they both posit Determinism as the cornerstone of their ideologies. But if determinism is accepted as true then even though both Science and Theology have achieved half of their goal of getting rid of our pesky belief in freewill they are left with the paradox of no possibility for morality. The worse fear of Behaviorist and Theologians is a society where justice can not be established with punishment and reward.Theology starts with a God which is all powerful. If this is our starting point then Freewill is not possible.The only difference between Theology and Behaviorism is a debate on what is the First Cause. Everything has a cause in physics. So being mere machines we must behave in relation to external causes that can be traced back to the beginning of the Universe. The moment the Universe began there was a chain reaction that led directly to the formation of planets and ultimately to life on Earth.This whole chain was predetermined by the initial cause which science postulates as The Big Bang and theologians postulate as God.Leaving aside the question of whether there was a first cause or not we are still left with a big problem.That is the problem of how a Determined Universe can manifest conscious beings with freewill. The answer is simple. Determinism and Freewill are incompatible.So you must choose between one view or the other. If you choose determinism you must give up moralism and most moral philosophy. This would not be a problem except that the Punishment/Reward Ideologies of both Theology and Behaviorism are undermined .The goal of both theology and behaviorism is control. The first step in instituting this control is to get rid of the idea of freewill as being possible.

Here is my proposal. Creation Science is silly on the face of it because whether there is a God or not is not only a religious question but creation stories are obviously mythological in nature. To find a science to prove that any given Mythology is actually description of reality is doomed to fail.So my proposal is to create a branch of Philosophy known as Creation Metaphysics.Obviously this will not be taught as a Science Program. It will instead be taught as part of a Humanities Course. oOf course this brings up the problem of why science is taught in schools with little regard for the Humanities. Considering the fact that most courses in the Humanities are secular and liberal it is curious why there isn't more emphasis on the Humanities in school anyway.Creation Metaphysics will cover the Hard Problem of Consciousness and the relationship between that and the Observer Problem in QM. This will lead to postulating an alternative to The Big Bang in Cosmology.ID Challenges Evolution by Natural Selection. Why not skip Biology and go straight to Cosmology?The Point is the Scientific community are purist and do not play well with others. So mixing Religion and Science is frowned upon as it should be. After all religion for most its history was a Bully using Inquisitions and Crusades then claims credit for laying the groundwork for science . At least so says William Craig.I mean to say that Craig wants religion to get credit for beginning of science not that he thinks religion should take responsibility for it's opposition to progress scientific or otherwise. Yep I got an axe to grind with him.Philosophy on the other hand is neutral ground. Because philosophy can be very Scientifically based but at the same time can open doors that science wont touch and often has to catch up to even consider.We know we are alive and sentient beings. And we know that there is no explanation for consciousness in matter. Let us explore our biases that say Humans are definitely aware and animals maybe but only certain animals. And certainly not plants. How do we draw these lines?Because we are looking for "Intelligence" in animals. We can not even properly measure Intelligence in ourselves. According to scientific reasoning what you can not accurately measure doesn't exist.This brings us to the Quantum Reality problem known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.The physicist Werner Heisenberg developed the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which says that when measuring the physical state of a quantum system there's a fundamental limit to the amount of precision that can be achieved.For example, the more precisely you measure the momentum of a particle the less precise your measurement of its position. Again, in Heisenberg's interpretation this wasn't just a measurement error or technological limitation, but an actual physical limit.Now if you can not measure Intelligence you certainly can not measure Awareness. This is what creates the hard problem in Consciousness.Creation Metaphysics would address all this and avoid all the problems that ID has because unlike ID it is not repackaged Creationism.We would not assume that one of the Mythological Tribal Deities of The Canaanites which were in anyway responsible for creation of the Universe.In fact in Creation Metaphysics I do not propose any form of Creationism at all. Because I do not believe the Universe was "Created".I am talking about a Creative Universe. I am talking about an Quantum Organism. And we are the result. Not planned but a natural consequence of an Aware Universe trying to WAKE UP!"I speak of none other than the computer that is to come after me," intoned Deep Thought, his voice regaining its accustomed declamatory tones."A computer whose merest operational parameters I am not worthy to calculate{ and yet I will design it for you. A computer which can calculate the Question to the Ultimate Answer, a computer of such innite and subtle complexity that organic life itself shall form part of its operational matrix.And you yourselves shall take on new forms and go down into the computer to navigate its ten-million-year program! Yes! I shall design this computer for you. And I shall name it also unto you. And it shall be called . . . The Earth." Douglas AdamsEdited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Wrong word in my proposal used. I meant to say philosophy not mythology. My mind wandered and almost ruined my post. Luckily I caught it.

This is why I propose a new movement. I just came up with Creation Metaphysics as an example.Its not that I want to get around science.But ID is speaking out of both sides of its mouth when claiming that Evolution is wrong but suggesting Guided Evolution. To them God is the Biblical God thereby a person like you and but smarter. Much smarter. etc If you take any human being and give them infinite power you have the Christian God. They would get jealous and angry and make rules about hygiene,sex, etc. And of course they would want to be worshiped. This is "human" nature. This is why Paley's argument of the Watchmaker is so appealing to them. To a Christian God is personal or human like.To me God is Transpersonal. Even though I am more Pantheist than Deist I will give you some definitions to clarify "Transpersonal".Modern Deism is that God is transpersonal - God transcends the personal/impersonal duality and moves beyond such human term"Many Theists view an transpersonal God as one that is pointless but for the Deist the opposite is true. This relationship transcends notion of personal and impersonal and is not pointless because God does not just have a relationship with humanity but with all of nature (creation) and man is a part of it. "
Deism Defined http://moderndeism.com/html/deism_defined.html
Classical Deism is that God is impersonal - she doesn't bother with us mere mortals.And the ID proponents description of "Guidance" has nothing to do with seeing intelligence in nature or design. Design and Guidance are 2 different things anyway. It's all a mess compared to the real science behind Evolution.If a scientist were to challenge Evolution as a theory and propose a new theory that just involved natural selection then admitted that his new theory was just a different form of evolution called Mutation Evolution people would think he was mad. This would be so even if even if natural selection hadn't been discovered yet.To clarify this is what ID proponents do when they propose we get rid of natural selection and replace Evolution with "Guided" Evolution. Then worse yet call the Process Design.Am I looking for evidence of design in evolution or guidance?This ambiguity gives ID away as a subterfuge if nothing else did. But even though I have been an atheist all of my life up to becoming a Pantheist I can not accept the nihilist explanation atheist give. And I agree that Atheism is not a proper framework for science. Neither is Christianity. To me Christianity is a mythological construct politically motivated in it's construction. Atheism simply denies that mythological constructs have any basis for framing scientific questions.But Metaphysics is not a Mythological Construct.Naive Realism Denies Metaphysics but Quantum Physics has already demolished Naive Realism.Since Atheist affirm Naive Realism as a better frame work for science than Mythological Constructs I have to part from Atheism even though I agree with 90% of what they say.Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : TypoEdited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Clarity

I think I make clear why I personally think ID is impersonal and non creative. It is because I do not think of God as a person.To me God is the Universe and is therefore Transpersonal.To me the personal God of Theology is an impersonal God when you break down their Metaphysics. And the idea of a person designing my Universe with a set goal in mind is cold. How cold is it to touch a domino knocking all the other dominoes down in a preset pattern that pleases me? So maybe I mean Egoistical. It's weird. They make their God so human like but their Theological explanations of God and his purpose is so impersonal based on the Mechanical Universe they believed was designed like a watch.Obedience was the purpose. And behavior modification was the solution. Heaven was a concept for positive reinforcement and Hell for negative reinforcement.When you mix ID with the Christian Bible you have to accept Theology that says we are just toys for God to play with.So if this is what you mean by playful or creative...`I always thought that about the Garden of Eden story,'' said Ford.``Eh?''``Garden of Eden. Tree. Apple. That bit, remember?''``Yes of course I do.''``Your God person puts an apple tree in the middle of a garden and says do what you like guys, oh, but don't eat the apple. Surprise surprise, they eat it and he leaps out from behind a bush shouting `Gotcha'. It wouldn't have made any difference if they hadn't eaten it.''``Why not?''``Because if you're dealing with somebody who has the sort of mentality which likes leaving hats on the pavement with bricks under them you know perfectly well they won't give up. They'll get you in the end.''Douglas Adams But is it irrelevant? Creativity is a process that never ends. Doesn't most form of ID propose the Christian God as the designer. Most of the debate I have watched with Craig and Plantinga etc are trying to justify Theology. I guess I find theology cold and dead. And I can not see science based on the theological concepts of God. Well I think that should be a separate movement because the Atheist and ID proponents here alike agree that ID is a movement of Creationist. And you are making my point for me I think that you can detect intelligence in nature and in the Universe itself but again I have a problem with the word design. I think the word Design is used in ID because theology demands a "purpose" behind the Universe. Artist do not have a "purpose" except to create. At least that should be the true artists passion. If the Universe has a "purpose" and worse yet that "purpose" just happens to be the spread of Christian Theological Principles then I am predetermined creature meant for obedience so I can get a reward at the end. Ugggh This is my point if the Aliens simply wanted to make our biology more advanced so we could one day form cultures of our own choosing then I am not as offended. But if the Aliens had a "purpose" behind this such as farming us for food or practicing slavery techniques like market advertisers do when doing market research again ugggh That wasn't really my point about measurement. If you read the Uncertainty Principle certain measurements are not possible. Not even approximation. I am claiming that is because our Universe isn't "Designed" and so is not Deterministic. It is Consciousness that observes and therefore creates reality that provides the Indeterminism in QM. We have met God and he is Us. God is the Universe. So God did not have to "Design" the Universe. The Universe being self aware wanted (Maybe wanted is not the right word) to have a deeper experience. That deeper experience is sentient Beings. How this is possible is not known. Yet we are living proof that matter can achieve consciousness. Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Clarify a point

Not sure what you mean by that. I have heard of an "Atheist" meaning lack of belief in God but an atheist of atheism? You do not believe Atheist exist? Are you an
A-Atheist?OR are you saying that I do not have a proper view of real Atheist. I was 100% Atheist up until I was 30. Ok 99% but I thought I was 100%. The problem is that the logical conclusion of Atheism if you take it all the way as far as you can go as truth is Nihilism.I was 100% happy with Atheism but I couldn't escape Nihilism without giving up at least 10% of my Atheism. Believe me I tried!Anyway I'm not convinced the alternative is better as you say because Atheism sees itself as the alternative to Christianity or Theism in general. To me anything is better than Christianity or Theism in general!Except Nihilism which is where most forms of Atheism ultimately lead.Of course most forms of Theism also lead to a form of Nihilism they just take longer to get there taking the scenic route through other forms of Nihilism like Moral Nihilism for instance. Yes I know ironic but a moralist is an absolutist and Absolutism of any kind is a direct path to Nihilism. They actually think of this as objective morality. Double ugggh.Spiritual Anarchist writes:I do not believe we live in a cold Godless Universe. I was almost relieved until you said you lived in a warm Godless Universe. *L* Who provides the warmth? Other human beings? Im ok with that. I just wont leave it at that. How can a cold Universe produce warm beings? How can matter be conscious or aware. This is the Hard Problem of Consciousness. I see Pantheism as a possible solution but Materialism is a dead end even if I am wrong.But I have concluded instead that the Universe is alive and as more awareness manifest the Universe becomes more creative. See my prior point.The suffering in this process is attributed to the fact that to eliminate suffering that the Universe must become self reflective and aware of itself through us and other sentient beings. Maybe not a proven fact. But that doesn't mean it can not be true. Science seeks proof through observation and I am stating what I have observed when practicing mindfulness. I guess I half agree with you and you half agree with me by your wording. The question is how do we deal with how sentient beings treat eachother? When I become aware of your suffering the Universe IS becoming self aware. That is non-locality of QM is being activated. My consciousness is affected by your consciousness and matter is not directly involved. I guess what I am getting at is that it might actually be possible. And I have actually observed it happening.Is the Intelligent Design Movement open to Pantheism or other view points beside Christianity? Yeah I figured that. Maybe I will start that movement I joked about earlier.I feel like I must choose a false Dichotomy in this debate between a meaningless Universe with no room for souls,freewill etc
or belief in some Tribal Deity of the Canaanites. I agree completely. I do have freewill and soul.So that is the Universe we live in now... Wait a second you want to postulate freewill without a soul?I can't get there with you. If I am just a process of my brain then I have to agree with Dennett that Freewill is just a convenient illusion.As for God I just see God as the singularity when all souls are one and the Universe vanishes. Boom we are God then we create another Universe and a couple of billion years later we might be having this same conversation.

I just want to thank everyone here. This is the best philosophy conversation I have had hands down. Not just on the internet but period. I did not mention in the beginning that I was doing research for a book I am writing because I did not want anyone to think I was here to sell something rather than have a real discussion.This discussion has given me real insight into ID beyond the debate on Youtube where Atheist and Creationist just try to tear eachother apart and further their agendas.Yes I do believe that some of the major player Atheist have an Agenda.Just as Creationist have the Discovery Institute and the Wedge document there are Science organizations that claim that this is only about Evolution and yet when you visit their website it is all about Global Warming "Deniers"I see this as no different from the ploy of Creationist to "Teach The Controversy".There are people that stand to make a lot of money through spreading fear of the "Environmental Apocalypse as there are people that make money of our fear of a "Biblical Apocalypse".I do not think there is an Atheist Conspiracy if you will but money does change hands and I will expose false movements for what they are. For those who are interested in my book I promise to keep all the conspiracy crap out of it. Although I will have to mention The Discovery Institute I don't have anything but journalist intuition about "The New Atheist" movement.My book is about Philosophy and does not use Journalism as a tool. Unless you count basic research.Anyway my interest in this subject is genuine and if anyone wants to discuss this topic further without any reference to the book I am writing I will be happy to add comments to this board in reply to this topic or answer questions in messages. To be clear I am only revealing this to be honest with you about my motives for engaging in this topic. Not trying to sell anything.I am going to post my link on Authors Den because I am not selling any books on that site. So I will not get inquiries here about my book. Because if I answer inquiries here it might seem I am trying to promote my book. If I ever do finish my book however I will make sure people will be able to find a link on Authors Den.I really needed to see if ID proponents or Atheist would read anything besides The Dawkins view or Behe . I have been more than pleasantly surprised.If I was not researching I STILL would have enjoyed every minute of discussion and I still would have posted exactly what I did post. I also needed to see that there were real philosophers out there that had other views beyond pure atheism or Creationism/ID.I hope no one here is mad at me. I am completely sincere in all that I said both in this post and in all my other post.Brian Gordon (author) on AuthorsDenEdited by Spiritual Anarchist, : typos

I just want to throw in one more irony. Everyone I have ever met consider me an Atheist ... except Atheist. and to add salt to my wounds The World Pantheist which has almost all the Pantheist as members are is made up of mostly Atheist. .. just saying... I have been an Atheist all my life but because I now believe I have a soul ... Never mind... I just thought it was funnyHere is a post from my Blog you might find interesting. I first posted it on an Atheist message board where I asked not believing God should mean I have to give up my soul as well. They assumed because I did believe I had a soul that I must believe in God or Xtianity. Talk about a mess.To Think Or Not To Think: The Soul of The Atheist

Just a quick note I do not believe in "randomness". Determinist apply this word to signify indeterminacy. Indeterminacy is in the Universe because the Universe is aware. The same reason indeterminacy applies to quantum affects in our brain. There is no other way for us to be aware. Not sure I could "prove" all this. But I can make good arguments based on what we already know.And yes I have observed the Universe being aware. I am not gone but you have given me a lot to think on. Remember I am picking of all your brains because I am a philosopher and I am fascinated with the members here. You are real thinkers. But I am also picking your brains for research. If I could prove all my theories not just as reasoned arguments based on current data but as a rival scientific theory I might be nominated for the Noble Prize. But I am not holding my breath on that. Einstein himself never produced a Unified Theory.I am more of a Socrates than an Einstein. Or maybe I fall somewhere in the middle between the two. But if I do it is no credit to my self. I am just a very old soul way to aware to be in this Universe. And Awareness isn't intelligence. Awareness like mine allows me to be a visionary but unfortunately Visionaries don't have the mathematical aptitude to to construct a convincing model of reality.As a philosopher I am not trying to build a model anyway. I am trying to observe the nature of reality directly. Unfortunately even if I am successful it could be lost in translation. I'm not making excuses. I will try. But I need to focus on my writing as well as having fun debating. So bear with me.Ps you may want to read some of my original post on this subject on another philosophy message board. I go into much more detail on my view point then I have here. Unless you want me to go through the post on that board and post some of the main points here? But than you would miss the back and forth on there. If you do check it out don't bother past page 3 the debates break down into pure silliness after thatCan An Atheist Have A Soul?

Just to be clear I was just saying that anyone that could prove that Quantum Physics can be unified with the rest of Physics by showing awareness as a real Phenomena in the Universe ...would get a Noble Prize. I may joke about being a genius before my time but I'm not that arrogant. I wasn't claiming that I was working on such a theory.Now my friend Fred Alan Wolf has worked on these types of theories and does provide the math and has a degree in Quantum Physics if your really that interested. (Yes he is a friend though we are not that close on contact since the Quantum Mind Group fiasco)For a different perspective you can try the book I am reading now. "Why the World Doesn't Seem to Make Sense" by Steve HagenMy research has nothing to do with trying to prove the theories I have been sharing with you. My research is related to unraveling the question of why Materialist or Creationist are so convinced that there is no need for Metaphysics ...because their Paradigm of Evolution or Creationism has already solved everything.To me to think that religion or scientific materialism have already solved all the great mysteries of Life The Universe and Everything... and we are just counting up the casualties in that war to see who won... is delusional thinking.But both sides are further delusional in thinking that their own position is self evident and all they have to do is work out the final details. It never occurs to either side that they are completely off the mark.Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : typos missing point needed to be addedEdited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Wanted to provide suggested reading outside what I can offer

Really? Who do you think you are? I knew some ahole would throw this at me when I mention a book. I didn't mention the book until this whole debate was pretty much wrapped up. I post 90% of my messages before even mentioning a book. And if you listened to anything besides your own ego you would see that I said I was Researching a book not selling one. Give me a break. I also said that I wasn't trying to prove a theory but pick peoples brains on the subject. I am not a scientist. I am a philosopher so I do not have to submit to peer reviewed journals.And Fred Alan Wolf IS a Quantum Physicist and has backed this up with math and science. So why should I do that work all over again? My writing is about the debate and how closed minded and egotistical people are. Thanks for proving my point!By the way Metaphysics and Quantum Physics are not prose they are actual disciplines moron so get out of my face. I didn't begin this discussion offering a model of anything.My point in starting this discussion was simply to ask IF ID was open to Pantheism or if it was completely a CHRISTIAN/CREATIONISTmovement.Tell me why I need a model of anything to pose this basic question?I certainly wasn't asked for a model before I mentioned I was researching a book nor was I called a charlatan.That was my only point. That's it. I'm not selling anything. I do NOT have anything to sell. I am Researching. There is a difference.Finally you say You are quoting me out of context. I didn't say that there were claims to solving everything. My point was that Evolutionist in this debate believe that Evolution as it is solves how we got here and what we are etc. And the only thing that an Evolutionist or ID proponent hasn't claimed to solve is All the details.That is Evolutionist say the answer to spirituality morality and biological origins are all solved by a materialist paradigm within the framework of Evolution.There is still much research to be done in evolution to see exactly how it works. But Evolution is the only framework to ask any serious questions about life period according to Evolutionist.ID or Christians believe that evolution is Guided by God who just happens to be the God of the Bible so to them Evolution solves all the same problems but they believe that we will never know exactly how Evolution works because it was Designed by God. They claim out of one side of their mouth this is all incomprehensible because God is incomprehensible but out of the other side of their mouth they claim the Bible explains it all.Both views are delusional.I think I can prove that Metaphysics IS still relevant to questions about the nature of our reality and therefore has direct bearing on this debate.And I believe Quantum Physics and the Hard Problem of Consciousness have a bearing on this debate. And I DO have the right to my opinion and to express my opinion.

Just to be clear.An Atheist talks about God by referring to A God or Gods and is referring to Mythological Constructs that both apply to Mythology and Religion equally. To the Atheist there is no difference between the two.A Theist talks about God as The God and refers to all other Gods or God Concepts besides their own as Mythological ConstructsWhen Einstein used the term God he was not referring to a Mythological Construct. He was referring to the Universe. I do not ask anyone to agree with me about Pantheism but please understand that as a Pantheist I do not mean by God what you do.I do not mean a person. I do not mean a deity. And I am not referring to something supernatural. I do not belong to a religion. To me Buddhism is a form of Metaphysics. I am not a Theist or Materialist or Nihilist. Nor am I a Supernaturalist or New Age Guru or Follower.The Following is my understanding of God so far ...The Nature of GodIS The Nature of RealityThe delusion that you are not God creates the desire to be God.Since you cannot be what you are not you are left with the delusion of a God that rewards you for believing and obedience.Atheist, Agnostics, Mystics and Pantheist are dancing around the edge of the same truth.Part of the hard problem of consciousness is the overwhelming improbabibility of consciousness becoming as self aware as a human being.Human beings are capable of achieving states of God consciousnesses by turning their awareness inward.
The religious grasp so tightly to conceptual reality and their egos that they see this as a threat to their egocentric world where they can project God outside themselves.Atheist see the problem in reverse where they correctly see the God project (Projecting God outside yourself) as unreal but when shown Einsteins God they jump to the unwarranted conclusion that Einstein had not perceived anything beyond his own consciousness.Hence to quote Richard Dawkins Pantheism is sexed up Atheism. Which brings me back to my original point.
The interaction between probability and possibility is what creates reality.Reality is the present interacting
with presence or awareness.
What we call the past is the sum of all probabilities or Universes.What we call the future is the unknown potential of all things being equally
probable therefore possible.In the future anything is possible.In the past probabilities are continuously generated and collapse into the present.Every moment in the past happens simultaneously creating probable "Nows"which awareness observes thereby creating time as presence(Awareness) continuously creates the present.Those who limit their view to
one lifetime can only observe the
probabilities based on their own past.If you limit your view to one Universe
you further limit the probabilities.The possibilities of the future are
filtered down to only possibilities
based on your limited lifespan and
limited view.If you are 20 you can only imagine technology or society advancing up to 20 years and only at the speed you have observed for the past 20 years.To be a true creator you must open your mind to infinite possibilities where all is equally probable.Then you must create your own reality.When you have lived enough lives you will start to remember more than one life and you will become more creative more open.Infinite openness can only come from
perfect trust in the universe.Perfect trust in the Universe can only come from becoming the Universe.To do this you must be willing to sacrifice all of who you think you are
to become infinitely open.This is the mind of God and explains why God is also experienced as unconditional LOVE. Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Typos