Are Scientists Abandoning Evolution?

How would that not be evolution?If God, for instance, is specifying the outcome of everything that we describe as "random", what's the difference?

I disagree. ID suggests that an intelligent designer is causing things to happen that would normally not according to the laws of physics as we know them. What you've proposed is that, thanks to God, the laws of physics are pre-programmed to allow humans to occur. You're skipping a step - the part where you prove that there actually is a god worth investigating.

Then apparently you don't understand ID. That is, after all, how ID'ist propose to detect the influence of design - by the detection of outcomes that are too unlikely to have occured according to the laws of physics as we understand them. And I'm going to flat-out tell you that's bullshit, and just a symptom of the fact that you can find similarities between any two bodies of "knowledge" if you look hard enough. Are you familiar, at all, with the Law of Fives?I mean, for every "principle" of mystical BS you can mirror in quantum models, there's ten that are out in la-la land. It's simply a demonstration that even a stopped clock is right twice a day - if you spew enough bullshit some of it is bound to approach a truth.

Well, you first. You have to show me the principles, if you can call them that, that line up between quantum mechanics and your flavor-of-the-week mysticism. That's not a claim of mainstream ID. I'm not sure what you're referring to. To the extent that an amateur can be, I'm familiar with both classical relativistic and QED models in physics. If you think the Anthropic principle is proof of design, you need to know that you're two decades out of date. You're not familiar with the Kane-Perry-Zytkow paper? (Not the first, but very definitive.)

quote:

---

Kane, G. L., M. J. Perry, and A. N. Zytkow, 2000 (28 Jan.). The beginning of the end of the anthropic principle. New Astron. 7: 45-53.

---

This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-30-2005 12:03 AM

That's not what was in the beginning, though. Strike one. Since you can get the same quantum effects absent the presence of any conscious observer I would say that is incorrect. Strike two. I don't consider matter obeying physical laws, even weird physical laws, to be "miraculous." Strike three.

You didn't really present a substantial argument. Your whole thing is basically "hey, QM says there's information, and the Bible says the beginning was a word! Words are information, right?" All the while ignoring the actual definition of the term "information" as used in quantum mechanics.Law of Fives all over the place. Never heard of the guy, so I can't say, but it's pretty clear that I understand more than you. Ah, but of course, when that consensus can be mistakenly construed to support your position, suddenly the scientific consensus is unimpeachable?