Are Scientists Abandoning Evolution?

Note: I did not see the 2 posts prior to posting mine. Wssn't trying to get in the last word, but reply, which hopefully is informative, to the comment made on my posts.I suspect some scientists are swayed by ID, but maybe more the concept of guided evolution than something like traditional creationism.

I actually think the latter is the case, that matter is the result of the particular nature of their energy, but it's not clear to me that most accept that. But the actual mass is so small, in terms of the space it occupies relative to the object containing the mass, that the whole scenario I have laid out still is valid. If you reduced all the mass of the building you are in to eliminate the space between the mass, assuming the mass is not just a different form of energy, the mass may not even be visible, or at least very tiny.Plus, the question in quantum physics is also just when does the mass become mass. When it exists as a probability pattern, where is the mass, and what form does it exist? I think they are mainstream, as far as quantum physics researchers, but it also seems there is a lot of specialization and some scientists may not really delve into this area, or care to have an opinion based on the science so much. Some have gone as far as to say no one can really understand quantum physics, but it works. Personally, I think it's easier for someone schooled in spiritual principles to understand quantum physics, though not to research it, because the ideas and principles have already been taught, accepted, and considerable effort often put into applying them or at least applying them in theology and thought (hopefully in deeds and actions too). That's what I am saying, especially since these physicists did not come to these ideas via religion. It's not even that they are advocating religion or spirituality. It's just that the basic principles they are uncovering seem to say the exact same things that spiritual traditions have said for thousands of years.

GDR, keep in mind this is a secondary point since what we view as far physical objects contains very little matter in terms of space, and thus the field of space we see the object occupying is for the most part energy, and a pattern that moves very tiny bits of matter into positions that tend to duplicate that pattern. I would say the pattern moves the matter "around" except that's not what happens. It appears in different places.Moreover, we see particles can seem to not exist in any definite form, but a probability of forms, or a superposition of forms according to the pattern, but the matter may not actually exist as matter until a certain point in time where something occurs, but rather as merely the potential for matter, and if that is the case, I would suggest that matter should be more thought of as a manifestation of the energy pattern, and not something existing apart from it, but something that emerges from the energy pattern.John Wheeler, as the quote below indicates but can be gleaned from other articles, books, etc,..as well, describes the fundamental physical state of particles as intrinsincally undefined. http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/qphil.htmlI am not basing any of this on string theory, but on quantum physics by the way. If a particle has a superpositional potential that only collapses into a single state, at some intervention, whether consciousness or otherwise related to it, then the particle exists as information first and foremost and the matter is a secondary existence subsequent to the information pattern.That to me suggests that matter is "the result of the particular nature of [its] energy" as you put it.I hope that answers your question, and I apologize if I have not used the clearest of language.This message has been edited by randman, 05-31-2005 07:08 PM