A case for Natural Design

But you cannot get away from physics in your argument, and the reason is that you are positing the properties detailed in physics and chemistry serves as a guiding influence to produce design.There is no way to deny the role of physical properties that fall under chemistry and physics in the process. In other words, the physical design that pre-exists plays a strong role, even in evolution, of biological designs.So the issue, if you want to argue natural design as the sole means of how design occurs, must deal with how the physical world came to be.Do you have a naturalistic explanation of how the universe came into being and remains that way without any assistance from an Intelligent Force, Designer, or Creator?

A better analogy would be that you could not read the sentences on this page without knowing the words, and you cannot know the words without the letters. The lettering and individual words make up part of the sentences.Likewise, you cannot ignore chemistry and physics because these areas play a fundamental role in the design of biological systems.Take DNA for example. Chemistry plays a critical role in the formation and development of DNA.Or matter; all biological life consists of matter which is governed by physical laws.Physics and chemistry are governing factors influencing any biological design.

I think your willingness to tackle the design question is admirable, but the substrate does indeed make a massive difference when speaking of emergence/evolution or creation of life.Life is not just biological. It is also physical and chemical, and perhaps other less well-known areas as well, such as spiritual.

Ramoss, spiritual traditions whether biblical, Buddhist and pretty much most others posit that the spiritual realm underlies all physical existence. Paul proclaimed for example that "in Him we live and breathe and have our being" and the Bible also declares "the whole earth is full of His glory." "Glory" can be thought of a shining of God's presence or attributes in that context.So whereas maybe only some like Hindus think a bacteria has a soul or something, all think the Spirit of God, the Divine, or a Universal Spirit animates the life-force that gives existence to all living things, and really that God, or a spiritual force is the source giving existence to all non-living things.Imo, an objective analysis of QM principles indicates QM is probably researching principles and the arena formerly known as "spiritual."For example, the quantum physicist Anton Zellinger quotes the gospel of John in drawing the parallels to his work and conclusions in proclaiming information is the root of anything, and that this is what quantum physics shows. He references "In the beginning was the Word..." to make the point this is really a very old idea, which QM has given scientific data to support.There are other parallels in the basic principles of QM. It appears that QM in studying the fundamental nature of physical existence has verified the basic spiritual paradigm of what underlies and maintains physical reality.So in reality, I can provide a great deal of supporting data and documentation that shows that spirituality is fundamental to physical existence. The evidence is the fact that what could be termed predictions of spiritual traditions, the basic generic perspective of a spiritual realm, are borne out in the principles and data we see in QM.This message has been edited by randman, 08-04-2005 04:50 PM

Actually, what I am claiming is that spirituality appears to be fundamental to the existence of inanimate matter.My reasons are that QM principles so dovetail spiritual principles in nearly every spiritual tradition, such as claims that information comes first before matter, shown by QM in demonstrating a probability pattern exists that gives rise to actual specific determinations of matter in specific locations.

The evidence is that particles and presumably physical objects don't exist first and foremost as a particular form of matter, but exist as a probability pattern.In QM, the particle exists as a probability to appear in a certain manner, and then the definite appearance follows subsequently.So what we thought of as physical or material actually is derived from a prior and larger state that appears to exist outside of normal, observed space-time that is not superluminal. The non-separability aspects of quantum realities demonstrates this superluminal activity, whether superluminal in reality or just from our perspective, there is some doubt, but irregardless, this is indicative of what we would expect if spiritual realms were true, and actually underlay physical existence as spiritual traditions claim.As far as "having" spirituality, that seems to imply a conscious will in the way you use it. The piece of granite's physical existence stems from a prior state, a probability pattern, which originates, imo, in the spiritual realm.Spirituality predicted this, and we see it. So it makes sense to think that state is part of what religions have termed "spiritual" since it fits the aspects and qualites so well that many spiritual traditions have made for thousands of years.

That's a common misconception since for a long time no one had devised a way to tell if it was the intrusion of measurement or something else, but even then the probabilistic aspect was considered real for a variety of reasons. What was in dispute was whether the act of measuring, or the fact something could be measured, caused the collapse of the wave function. The reality of wave/particle duality, or really potential for wave or particle, but existing as a potential was not disputed.But experiments have now been done to show that it is not simply measurement, but the potential for measurement that works to cause the change from one state to the other.The following link helped me understand it a little better awhile back. http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/qphil.html

The Copenhagen intepretation supports the probabilistic view of QM.Maybe you didn't realize that. For this thread, the Copenhagen interpretation fully supports my points on this thread. Within that interpretational framework, there finer points but it all agrees with the probabilistic aspect of physical reality.Wave-function just means that prior to observation a particle and some larger objects (maybe everything) exists in a superposition of potential states and places. The wave-function is the design. That means there is a likelihood of the particle appearing in certain places and forms, and believe it or not, that likelihood or potential is what a particle actually is.It takes on a definite form with observation, but this was shown through delayed choice and other experiments to occur, even if no instrusion was made.The materialist idea is that the "physical" is first and determines the design, but QM shows the design, the wave-function, predominates or is first, and that physical form is derivative of the design (wave-function).

That's incorrect. The probabilistic nature of QM is not thought to stem from measurement, just that measurement could be what causes that aspect to be made known, but measuring something does not cause a fundamental change in what something is. The probabilistic aspect is never in question.What is in question is whether consciousness/observation or a physical act of observation causes the collapse of the wave function. The wave function, or probabilistic nature of matter, exists either way.Most physicists are not QM experimentalists or QM researchers, and many thought that maybe it was the act of measuring since otherwise without consciousness, no matter could take on any form at all.The Copenhagen interpretation, to my knowledge, did include the consciousness-based concept, but maybe it also included the other. I am not sure. Niels Bohr did talk of a need for a Universal Observer, and I had thought consciousness-based modelling was THE explanation for Copenhagen, but someone challenged that.Regardless, the experiments I linked to show that the collapse of the wave function occurs even if no physical act occurs, but "the mere threat" of being measured appears to do the trick, which is fairly amazing. Mandel and some of the others like Wheeler, making these claims are somewhat giants in the field, or were giants.So what we see is no one disputes the probabilistic nature, in the sense that a wave function exists. Some argue there must be a more classical explanationm, but that does not remove the wave function. It just means it could be less random than earlier thought.I think most of this school are the string theorists.But either way, matter exists as a wave function, as information, before existing as matter in the sense of a measurable thing in 3-D.

Care to back that up? Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) This message has been edited by randman, 08-05-2005 05:50 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 08-05-2005 05:58 PM