Is ID a right wing conspiracy?

Such self-loathing!

QM deals with the nature of physical existence.Physical existence exists as a probability function, a design. The actual physical matter or energy is a secondary effect to the pre-existing design which can affect instantaneous manifestations of different form, such as going from a wave to particle-like and back again. In fact, QM effects can occur superluminally from our vantage point, (entanglement), and suggests either a different, more hidden structure that the observed universe is part of (spiritual maybe?), or superluminal, and beyond time, rates of transfer of information and maybe energy are possible.Whatever the case may be, we clearly see that the basic concept of materiality is not very physical at all, but in reality contains properties in human traditions referred to as spiritual.As an aside, one wonders if according to QM, the energy of a thought, even a thought from the past or future, exists in the sense or similar level of the energy of a particle.

If you're saying ( as it seems) that QM implies matter/energy don't really exist, but only a "design", well, that's just not correct.At the QM level, physical entities are described by a wave vector representing a superposition of possible quantum states. The physical observables correspond to Hermitian operators operating on the wavefunctions, such as the Hamiltonian energy operator. The physical entity's existence and the observable, are quite real. The result of a measurement is indeterminate until the measurement is made, but this does not mean the measured quantity is unreal.Written language, in any case, is really not adequate to express QM concepts, for that you need to go to the mathematics.In any case, I don't see how this helps the intelligent design case. ID'ers seem to treat evolution as a macroscopic process that they assert is not possible, trying to construct macroscopic arguments. Philosophizing about QM does not even seem germane to the problem.If you want to argue that QM renders evolution impossible, I'd need to see the math, or references thereof.If you are trying to refute the Newtonian clockwork concept of the universe, you've succeeded, but ID seems to be a reversion to that viewpoint, not something that takes into account 20th century physics.

No, that's not quite what I am saying. That's what I am saying. The superposition of possible quantum states is a design, which is what exists first, and the existence of one of those states in observed matter and energy is derivative of that design, not the other way around. The design, "the superposition of pssible quantum states," exists first and prior to physical existence as we know it everyday life.This is applicable to my concept of ID.In terms of criticism of ID that focusses exclusively on macro-scopic processes, I think this issue still has relevance because materialists discount ID a priori because they insist ID involves non-material concepts and mechanisms.you are right in that much of what is written about ID seems to dodge the mechanism argument and focus on forensically showing a mechanism had to be involved, that ID is a more plausible answer, but to dismiss the concept, as materialists do, because it involves non-material processes is, imo, faulty reasoning since materialist evolutionists are doing so based on a false concept of physical existence.Indeed, it can be shown that fundamentally physical existence is information ordered into a design, and that the "material" in terms of Newtonian or classical paradigms is a secondary, derivative aspect of reality, in terms of the physical world. The design is first and defines the potential that we experience as physical.This message has been edited by randman, 08-03-2005 02:58 AM

ID isn't capable of performing the verb, "to conspire." Last time I checked, it's a concept -- not a person.

Indeed, it is claimed to be a conspiracy, not a conspirator.

What a mess.
Anyway, if I'm interpreting that correctly, no such assumption is required. It's pretty simple: Until something else is needed, nothing else is needed. So's 2+3=5, unless you're talking to a preschooler.

conspiracy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-spr-s)
n. pl. conspiracies2. A group of conspirators.

Congratulations you have listed one definition of a conspiracy. Other definitions include:An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive actandA joining or acting together, as if by sinister designA conspiracy as you have pointed out is also the term used for a group of conspirators who are engaging in a conspiracy.What is a conspirator?One that engages in a conspiracy.This message has been edited by Modulous, Wed, 03-August-2005 10:38 AM

The agreement would be for people to perform together to place ID in schools. It would not be an agreement for people to ID, as that's nonsensical. ID can't act.Perhaps I should put a stop to this nonsense, and simply correct the topic:"Is there a right-wing conspiracy to put religion in public schools, with ID as their chosen vector?"Yes.This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 08-03-2005 06:10 AM

Indeed it would. Of course it can't. However, one can say "Intelligent Design represents the coming together of factions within the right wing to engage in a subversive act"If you want to put into your own terms: ID is the common name for the Intelligent Design movement...a group of 'conspirators'. Thus ID is a conspiracy.Teleology is not a conspiracy, ID is (or is alleged to be).

It is only 'self evident' to those people who wish it to be.If you ask for evidence of the assertion, ID drys up and blows away.

There is a serious misconception here as to what QM entails. The operator on the wave vector that represents the physical observable (e.g Hamiltonian, which represents energy) is as fundamental as the wave vector itself. Further, you're overlooking field theory and the existence of symmetries which lead to conserved quantities.If you want to say that all those things together represent a "design", I suppose you could, but it's kind of tautological. It's essentially saying "everything observable is a design" which get you nowhere scientifically- it just begs the question.Or if you want to say a designer operates through QM and its actions are not observable, that's interesting philosophy, and maybe standard theistic evolution. But it's content-free scientifically.And QM, philosophically speaking, is closer to liberal Christian theology e.g process theology, or even Buddhism, in its implications, than it is to the type of Evangelical theology the proponents of ID seem to advocate. But QM processes aren't non-material processes. Again, you're arguing against the Newtonian universe. But Behe/Dembski ID asserts that a designer has to make macroscopic (in the QM sense) interventions in biological system at (unspecified) times. IMO at least this is a very Newtonian notion, and we've been there, done that, didn't work, with Paley.So your version of ID is, at least, rather different from the Behe/Dembski version. Which may be interesting, but if you want to base it on QM, you need to get much more mathematical.Back on the thread topic. Is ID a "right-wing" conspiracy? If the term "right-wing" refers to the Evangelical social conservatives, maybe. There is certainly a defined agenda behind ID with social and political goals.Is "conspiracy" too strong a word? To gore some oxen, and stimulate thought, is the ACLU a conspiracy on the same grounds? The Left and Right both have many movements with defined political and social agendas. Many aren't good ideas. Are they "conspiracies" ?

Actually, if I may be so bold as to interpert the Venerable Jar, he was expressing loathing for the idiocy of ID. I add my hearty agreement to that sentiment.You seem to have missed his point so I thought I would help out.Also, the problem with the wedge document is that it is an express declaration of the intent of the ID movement in general and the producing organization specifically. That goal is to see to it that anything that they see as denying their particular brand of savage christianity is not taught in schools and anything they see as giving primary position and authority to their beliefs (and by extension, them) is part of the course of study.It's unconstitutional. It's against the law. It's also factually and morally wrong.

Not really. They don't get into theories on how ID might work, and instead just state the evidence is best explained by some sort of design mechanism.On QM, I think you are dodging the point. First, I suppose that it's true that everything exhibits design. That's an observed fact, and unlike you, I think it has great relevance.But secondly, looking at the particulars of QM, there is definitely evidence of the design as a potential for form exists prior to one single form. I don't know how you can just dismiss that basic discovery of QM.The paradigm of QM is a significant departure from what physical reality consists of. In the older paradigm, one could argue that the design of, say, a photon is merely a by-product or a co-product of it's existence in 3-D at any observed point in time. In other words, the physical state evolved and the design is thus a product of that evolution.However, in reality, we are not even sure if a photon exists in a single state. In reality, there is a superposition of states, a design by definition, that exists clearly first, and one of those states occurs in 3-D or 4-D based on it's interactions.So the design exists first prior to physical form, and that's a fairly significant departure in terms of how we think of physical existence. In fact, it's hard to say if it exists at all in terms of one definite state. John Wheeler, from what I have read, says the photon does not exist as either a wave or a particle, but is undefined and exists as probability for either.According to QM, that probability is real existence, and I agree, but it's a form of existence probably best understood as an information pattern which takes one definite "physical form" after certain events occur.As far aas Buddhism, Christian theology, etc,...the principles of QM are reflected in many spiritual traditions but not necessarily the specific doctrines of whether Jesus was resurrected, or whether Buddha's departure from Hinduism is correct, etc,...but in terms of the spiritual realm, these different belief systems share some commonalities which QM now seems to be getting into, which is one reason I think QM is studying what was formerly known as spiritual principles.Now, if you are saying QM does not necessarily show a Designer, that could be true, although consciousness/observer based interpretations do seem to strongly indicate the presence of a design mechanism and the necessity for a Universal Consciousness.