Moving towards an ID mechanism.

I don't see how QM can be evidence for ID when the interpretation you describe essentiallly disproves the existence of God.If aspects of reality are undefined until observed, as you suggest, then the fact that we can detect undefined aspects of particles we're not directly observing (the Afshar experiment) means that nobody else is observing them either, like an omnipotent God.Unless you believe in some sort of limited God, I guess. There's no use asserting that God is more powerful that QM, and that he has the power to circumvent that restriction - the limitation is not in God, but in the universe he created.

Ok. Then I'm sure you can cite from Wheeler's work where he posits a different class of observer that God belongs to.

I don't see how that's a mechanism. Collapsing quantum states doesn't appear to have any usefulness in, say, chemistry. How do you generate a protein by collapsing quantum states?QM is not a scientific basis for magic, RM, even though it seems magical to you.

Pretty much, yeah. Their paper doesn't even have conclusive evidence that adaptive mutations actually occur. The only examples they give are the E. coli on lactose substrate experiments, and they don't seem to address the most logical explanation - that E. coli on such a substrate appear to "mutate on demand" only because those that don't perish too quickly to be observed.You really should read the whole paper. Here's a link: No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.surrey.ac.uk/qe/pdfs/mcfadden_and_al-khalili.pdf

I'm curious - you always present that as a rationale for believing some cockamamie magic story about the universe, anything that confirms your pseudoreligious musings about the origin of life, but when it comes to evolution, one of the most widely-accepted and proven theories in science, the fact that "there appears to be many scientists that accept the phenomenon as real" doesn't seem to make an impression on you.In fact, quite the opposite - it's widespread acceptance proves to you that it's all just a conspiracy.Can you explain the inconsistency?

Oh, I'm the first to admit that QM models largely are over my head.But here's the thing. Are we talking about Wheeler's ideas, or yours? If we're just talking about yours, I don't believe that you're any better informed than I am. Nobody who believes that the evidence for evolution is "overstated" could be all that well informed in regards to scientific issues.If it's Wheeler's ideas we're talking about, let's see you substantiate that he's made claims about QM as a mechanism for intelligent intervention in the universe. If it's just your ideas riffing off of his, then don't wave his credentials around like they give you credibility.