Hail,

Intelligent design means that the universe behaves in accordance with known or unknown "laws". For example, Einstein's General Relativity would be such a law. However, it is known that this theory does not apply to the microscopic world.

If the universe were intelligently designed according to Laws such as the laws of classical physics, then such laws or other similar laws should also apply to microscopic physics.

What is the nature of these similar laws? Well, if a number of systems are identical and have identical initial conditions, then classical laws would deem that they behave exactly the same. If the microscopic laws are similar, or if they are of intelligent design, then we should expect exact behavor from identical systems.

However, on the microscopic scale, what we measure is that identical atoms, excited to the same state at the same time, will not decay at the same time. The decay time is probablistic. The laws of probability apply, which are based in large measure on randumbness, not intelligence.

This does not imply the lack of a gods, or gods, or even the supernatural- just a lack of intelligent design. Perhaps the god(s) are learning from us as we discover more and more about the universe. The behavior of gods recorded in human history would be evident of such a case.

A more scientific discussion may be found at:

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0304109

Please read and respond,

eva

• Depends on your definition of intelligent design... - quiet - April 18, 2003 - 16:02 UTC
  • Intelligent design defined adequately - jeevananda - April 18, 2003 - 16:59 UTC
    • tendency to rush to judgment in fields outside your own? - quiet - April 18, 2003 - 19:32 UTC
      • What kind of idiocy is this? - jeevananda - April 18, 2003 - 22:29 UTC
        • Jeevenanda idiocy, apparently - quiet - April 19, 2003 - 05:10 UTC
        • Please come back; you can learn here! - quiet - April 19, 2003 - 05:17 UTC
• my two cents - isaiah41 - April 19, 2003 - 00:29 UTC
  • Agreed... fuzzy logic is adjustable depending on goal - something - April 20, 2003 - 00:03 UTC
• Two cents plus two cents equals four cents - harvey1 - April 19, 2003 - 16:35 UTC
  • It's too bad the 'scientist' jumped to the conclusion and left! - quiet - April 19, 2003 - 23:21 UTC
    • Hi Mike - harvey1 - April 19, 2003 - 23:30 UTC
      • Okay - quiet - April 19, 2003 - 23:34 UTC
    • And by the way, if you don't answer my question - quiet - April 19, 2003 - 23:36 UTC
  • Four cents makes sense - jfulcrum - April 22, 2003 - 05:05 UTC
    • Religion gives meaning to our existence - harvey1 - April 22, 2003 - 12:04 UTC
      • Paragraph Correction - harvey1 - April 22, 2003 - 14:23 UTC
      • fun fun fun with Lucy, Neanderthal, and the Bible - kantolfir2 - April 23, 2003 - 05:30 UTC
        • it's not necessarily taboo to science - sagefr0g - April 23, 2003 - 09:07 UTC
    • My post was without rancor too - something - April 22, 2003 - 23:16 UTC
  • Does ICR presume God employs them to explain morality to me - something - April 22, 2003 - 23:23 UTC
• the same question arises with respect to evolution - sagefr0g - April 20, 2003 - 02:10 UTC
  • DNA is really a scootin' machine! - quiet - April 20, 2003 - 04:55 UTC
  • two more cents - isaiah41 - April 20, 2003 - 17:02 UTC
    • great expectations - sagefr0g - April 21, 2003 - 01:19 UTC
      • At least you are discussing this forum's topic! - quiet - April 21, 2003 - 16:03 UTC
        • still clinging to the thread proposed by eva - sagefr0g - April 23, 2003 - 01:43 UTC
        • i'm exhilerated!!! - sagefr0g - April 27, 2003 - 18:45 UTC