Are Scientists Abandoning Evolution?

If anything this seems to argue against a significant role for consciousness. The fact that the potential for knowledge about a system, rather than conscious observation/apprehension of that knowledge, is sufficient to destroy the interference pattern suggests that consciousness is unneccessary. Although perhaps potential conscious observation is sufficient in which case only a potential consciousness should be needed.TTFN,WK

Are you suggesting strong and weak forms of ID? With strong ID being the traditional Behe stance that there are sytems which can be shown to be IC have SCI etc.. and that the identification of these sytems and their demonstrable irreducibility an lack of possible stepwise evolutionary origin provide substantive evidence for an Intelligent designer. Weak ID on the other hand would be a form of theistic evolution where a designer may well have interfered and directed evolution but has done so in a way which is well below our ability to detect and for which there is neither substantive evidence or a need for such since it is a faith rather than a scientific position.I might agree that there are many scientists, including those in evolutionary biology, who might ascribe to such a 'weak' form of ID, but ID is generally equated with the strong form.TTFN,WK