Intelligent (maybe), but far from perfect

The obvious response to the OP is that the design contains corruption.The question is why, and that maybe something science cannot assess right now fully.Theologically, the Bible explains why, the Fall of Man's consciousness via sin which affected the rest of the universe in a sort of weird way.I tend to see some aspects of quantum physics involving consciousness interacting seemingly with matter to be indicative of a mechanism for direct effects via changes in consciousness, but we will see.

To say designed twice is clearly not what he is saying, but that the universe was indeed subject to corruption is not denied by most theists, evolutionist or creationist.Life was designed with the capability to be flawed, yes. To say why it was designed is a theological question.What is not debatable is that seeming "flaws" exist, at least from our perspective, and what should not be debatable but is, is the fact of ID. The universe clearly contains an embedded design, and matter and physical things essentially consist of information, an energy pattern.To think this pattern contains no mind or intelligence behind it is unreasonable.

Information and design comes from where?Btw, this essentially must include the question of the origin of matter and the universe because even evolutionists must admit there is design (just look at convergent evolution), but argue the design is a result of physical properties and laws and then later biological systems and thier interactions.But it still goes back to where did the design come from?Is it reasonable to think something can come from nothing?And if something appears, that is an effect. What is the cause that predates it? A basic principle is cause and effect, and another basic principle is that things are created from similar things.We create design out of the design existing in our intelligence. That real world experience indicates intelligence is necessary to create new information.

I think you are missing my point. There is scientific evidence in quantum physics that matter is a secondary trait to fundamental existence.Matter does not self-exist, but a probability pattern exists which tends to manifest as matter, and thus chemistry, biology, etc,...But the probability pattern is not inherently physical that we know of, although maybe physical is a poor term. It exists, and so is real, but appears to exist beyond normal observed limits of space-time.For example, this probability pattern shows non-local or superluminal characteristics that defy normal parameters. We don't know if there is superluminal transference of information in entangled particles, atoms, and potentially macro-scopic objects, or if there is a hidden structure within the universe that enables this non-locality or inseparability, or maybe really it's all the same thing but from different persespectives.What we do know is that the probability pattern (the design) is fundamental and predates physical form in a single state.Now, I guess we can argue whether such information patterns, probability patterns, are self-existent, contain consciousness?, or are generated by something else, but imo, the self-existent angle is not very logical.

In order to explain how I think it happened, I'd have to get into physics and perspectives on reality, which Ned has tried to ban me for.Suffice to say, what we think of as physical reality consists first as a potential for form, QM, and takes on specific form subsequent to events. The earth in space-time is essentially a streak, not a ball, sort of like a large pole.Imo, it is likely that pole can be affected and cause a vibration so that a different potential reality of it manifests, and thus past, present and future are all affected at once.To get more into it, we'd probably have to open a new thread.

Ramos, it's a different thread topic. I can't get into it here.

Well, this may be getting a little off-topic but just to explain the post. Quantum physics research has indicated for a long time that a particle, for example, exists in a potential for a superposition of states, a wave function, that when observed takes on a specific form in a specific place. Many prominent physcists such as Wheeler goes as far as to say that the particle exists as neither a wave or a "particle" in a single state, but is undefined until observed.In other words, what is fundamental to physical existence is information, an information energy design, and what is derivative is what we normally associate with "physical" in a classical sense. So physical form is derived from design. Now, we can debate how or why, etc, etc,...the design occurs, but the design precedes the form, and the form is derivative of the design, not the other way around, such that other "solutions" or appearances of the design can occur, but the design remains there the same.In terms of the pole analogy, that is drawn from General Relativity's perspective of space-time (4-D instead of 3-D). Physicists go way beyond that in the math, and I don't pretend to understand all of that, but it is more accurate to think of the earth not as a ball in space moving through time, but as a streak through space-time, sort of like a pole.My belief and this is not fully developed scientifically although there are a lot of hints at it is that the whole of the pole, the entire streak, can be affected as one single thing, and in doing so there are causal effects "backwards in time" from our perspective, or perhaps just expansions of potential historical time-lines.Imagine if you bumped a pole or rod for example and caused it to move slightly, or if the rod was slowly being warped and bent due to weathering. In space-time, if this is possible and I think we are beginning to see evidence it is, although small effects, then the movement in the pole would represent changes in history, changes in the past even.If they are small, they would not be so noticeable for the present, but over long periods of time could add up significantlyNow, my example is not a perfect one although the streak through space-time is fairly accurate, and I am not overuling lengthening or contracting the streak. It's too much to get into here, but those ideas are where that post comes from.

I can discuss it, and it has relevance, but am not going to as it crosses into perhaps a different thread topic. I was asked something by you and someone else, and I answered.Maybe I shouldn't have.