Foundations of ID

This is a big "if". I don't think that it takes an "observer" if you require that to be a sentient thing. Would you care to elaborate on why you think it might take such an observer?

Actually, that is an old expression of the idea. Recent work with quantum entanglement shows that you have to have no interaction whatever or the entanglement is destroyed. It does not require 'intelligent' observation. It simply requires some interaction with some other part of the universe.The idea that an intelligent 'observer' is required is something which has grown out of the everyday idea of "observe". Any observation requires some interaction with the system understudy. It does not require that an intelligent person examine the result of the interaction. We use the word, colloquially, to mean the persons examination. What actually 'collapses the wave function' is the interaction.

Well, this does tell us something about the nature of the designer then doesn't it?The designer can not be the Christian God as described by almost all of His believers can it? It seems unlikely that the ID folks actually wanted to disprove the existance of the Christian God but that is a side effect of this QM idea.The designer is clearly not omniscient is S/He/It? If He was the all observations have been made already. All wave functions are collapsed. Why then does the double slit experiment ever produce the interference result?I wonder who or what the designer is then now that we have eliminated one popular possibility?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-29-2005 09:27 AM

Could you explain more why there is that distinction. I'll have to do some other reading too I guess. Well, since science works with natural evidence it has to be viewed theologically doesn't it? Most folks seem to consider the Christian God to be omniscient don't they? That suggests to me that He/She/It is an observer of all events for all times. I thought that this was a "foundation of ID" that you were putting forward. Are you suggesting that quantum mechanics is an "intelligent designer"? If the designer is omnisicient what does that suggest about the observations of all quantum events? As I noted when I started: Most Christians I am aware of consider the Christian God to be omniscient. If I can say from what you are telling me about the QM issues that the observer is NOT omnisicient (since it does not collapse all wave functions ) then I can say that the designer is NOT the God that a majority of Christians believe in.If in discussing some unknown creature I can say nothing about the arms, legs, brain etc. but I can say that the hands are claws then I can say that we are not talking about a human being. I have eliminated that possibility.It seems to me that eliminating omniscience might still give us a God but it is not the God of the majority of Christians. I am inclined to think that without omniscience I also don't get omnipotence but that is too far from the topic at hand.

Did you not read the direct quote from Darwin just above your post???This is an error which I laboured under too. I thought that Darwin demanded a constant rate of change by evolutionary processes. It is clear from the given quote that he was, in fact, a "punk eqer" from the get go.Punk eq IS gradualism too. There is not suggestion that major changes arise in single steps. That has been rejected for a long time. Speciation can, on some occasions arise quickly in single steps but then species can be separate while being very, very, very similar.

deleted duplicateThis message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-11-2005 07:57 PM

Analogies are exactly useless in a logical argument unless they reproduce the situation being argued about. Analogies are useful as an explanatory tool if the real case is too complex for someone to "get" right off. They can then be used as a jumping off point to understand further.Even for the simplified explanation use they have to model the real situation under discussion adequately or they are just a source of further confusion.It appears that you think the 747 from a junk yard by tornado is a useful analogy.However, what are the most important points to understand about darwinian evolution: the combined action of imperfect replication with selection.Are either of those present in the analogy you offer? No, not at all. Aircraft do not f**k! There is no selection of anything by a tornado. Your analogy doesn't need to be refuted in that it isn't analogous to the situation under discussion. Not even close.It is utterly ridiculous statements like this that seem to be characteristic of a lot of the ID movement. Is it any wonder that it isn't taken seriously?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-11-2005 07:58 PM

In this case the analogy you use doesn't even look like the subject under discussion. This is not the fallacy. As I noted it is a useful form of communication. It is not a useful way to prove or demonstarte anything. I understand perfectly well what an analogy is. It might say something somewhat meaningful about something else if it reproduces the important points of the more complex thing that is being analogized. However, it never does more than indicate something it can not prove anything when it is in some way "dissimilar". You seem to have a habit of attempting to be funny when you don't have an answer for the points raised. Perhaps you would be more credible if you actually attempted to show that the 747 analogy is in any way useful when there is no imperfect reproduction or selection involved in the analogy. Which makes it not only dissimilar in some respects but dissimilar in the important respects.Now that you have made a funny, perhaps you would like a chance to try again.