Moving towards an ID mechanism.

Ok.Now, other than some bizarre application of QM which no one understands, and does not indicate an intelligent designer at all,give me a way to test for ID.give me a way to distinguish between 'Intelligent design', and variation with selection via the mechanism of natural selection.give me a way that can test that there is an 'intelligence' behind QM.Give me a way to 'detect' and 'quantify' information.Give me a definition of Information that is consistant.

That does not answer one solitary question I had.That, frankly, is totally meaningless to any of the questions I gave.Now,Will you address those points one at a time, or expand on how 'observer participation in quantum events' is meaninful in a testable way to any of those matters?

There is a difference between believing something, and coming up with a way to falsify it, or having it be real.How do you propose to test this belief? What testable statement, if proven true, proves that statement false? What methodolgy would you
use to test that statement?I find QM very esoteric. I don't think that just because I don't understand it , that it means there is a 'spiritual gateway' there.
You need something more substantial.

Just because your conception of QM and your conception of spirtuality shows there are simularities doesn't mean they are actually related.Are you taking it on faith? If so, then this is not science. If it is science, then how can this relationship be tested and possibly falsified?

Just because we don't have the technology at the moment doesn't mean the theories can not make predictions. We have the technology , and the concepts to be able to test much of QM (just not a qm/spiritual realm interface).There were items that the theory of relativity predicted that we had to develop the technology to be able to test. That did not mean that relativity did not make those predictions.QM has made a number of predictions. Many of those predictions have been confirm on many different tests.The ekuropic universe model makes a prediction that is different than the standard inflationary bb theory. We don't currently have the techology to do the test, but it is possible to do those tests.ID does not make any predictions. It does not have any explanitory power. The mechanism that Randyman is proposing doesn't seem to be
have a testable mechanism. (I will be waiting to hear his propsosal though).It might not be wrong, but until we have a method where it can be demonstrated, tested, and possiby falsified, it isn't science yet.