I would greatly appreciate your critiques, comments, additional or preferred sources, etc.
Thank you!
There is a tendency in FR threads for some to reason from the necessary existence of God, directly to the existence of the Christian God, complete with whatever attributes some particular church or demonination ascribes to God.
Second, it is quite reasonable to hypothesise that God exists only through the existence of the universe; that is, God cnnot be said to have attributes except those those that manifest themselves through existence. I used to think this was called Deism, but correct me if I'm wrong about this.
Strictly speaking, these experiments "prove" is that what they are seeing is neither a particle nor a wave. Which of course physicists have known for a while. They know that using the concepts of "particles" and "waves" are just that -- concepts.
Because our understanding of the nature of time is not yet complete, it is just as functional to say that a Creator is at work as to say there is not a Creator at work. If one starts with the notion that a Creator of spacetime and all attached to such a reality has a nature greater than the spacetime reality, the likelihood that such an Creator would use evolution (in some manifestation) as a process useful in the ongoing creative effort is acceptable. Nothing yet has 'falsed' that notion. Is it possible some future 'discovery' will false the notion? Well, the answer to that, on a personal, level depends on the level of openness one brings to the debate. In the last analysis, believing there is a Creator at work but we don't grasp the complexities yet is preferrable, to this amateur. To believe otherwise holds the potential for a possibly unpleasant surprise once one is 'beyond' the confines of spacetime as we experience it. Why chance the alternative when nothing compels one to reject the notion of a Creator at work? [Perhaps the 'divine ambivilence' is a part of the plan for evolving the creation. What if there IS a part of our nature that is not confined to spacetime?]
With all due admiration for your unbounded energy, this is not a new approach at all. You'll encounter a host of mathematicians and physicists who have published articles in places like PRL, J. Theor. Biology, Theor. Pop. Biology, Statistical Physics, J. Mathematical Biology and others. There are hundreds of those researchers who have put forth simple and, sometimes, silly models of evolution. Fields such as thermodynamics, emergence, adaptive systems, and mechanics have all been applied to biological evolution. And don't forget the evolutionists who have developed strong mathematical models of evolution. Names like Smith, Fisher, Haldane, Wright come to mind. The hope is that one of these days, the mathematicians and physicist who devise elegant, clean, simple models of evolution might bother to learn some actual biology.
Ref: T.A. Brown, Genomes. Wiley, 1999.
It is very possible, but it is not physics. It is a metaphysics in which recourse is made to a chance that is so enormously limitless that everything that is possible is real. But in this way it becomes a confrontation between metaphysics in which chance collides with purpose. This latter, however, seems much easier to believe! Physics up to now has been based on measurable "data." Beyond this it is a passage of metaphysics. At this point I compare it with another metaphysics. Those who sustain these viewpoints (like Stephen Hawking, for instance) should realize that this goes beyond physics; otherwise it is exaggerated. Physics, pushed beyond what it can measure, becomes ideology.
For whatever reason, this part leaped off the screen as I read it; likely for its reference to purpose and the conclusion leading to ideology.
This is difficult reading due mainly to its length and formatting on this small screen; I could follow it better if your first person remarks were non-italicized ariel font and others in a contrasting form.
It sure is one heck of an effort.
Pardon me, but depending on the question, both theories about whatever it is could very well be wrong, or both could be partially right. Life is very rarely so neat and clean as to present you with exactly two possible answers, one absolutely right, and the other absolutely wrong. ;)
As an agnostic, (NOT "Atheist", PLEASE!) I believe in God, but do not believe science will ever produce a proof or disproof of God's existence.
It is something we as human beings will never comprehend, so we just accept it on Faith.
So much for "causality". ( Wasn't my fault mom, God did it. )
Since God created this universe in which we live, God also created the physical laws under which it operates.
This not only encompasses the laws of mass, energy, space-time, motion, gravity, etc., but the laws concerning the formation of life.
I therefore have no problem with evolution as an explanation of how life exists, and how human beings came to be.
That is the way God decided to make the rules, and so it is.
We are continually learning new things about this universe which we live in and we may some day find some of our "assumptions" are incorrect.
( Hey! It could happen! )
It wouldn't be the first time someone's mathematical / physical laws were found to need adjustment.
Newton had to put up with Einstein being closer to the truth than he was. ( actually not, he was already dead. )
Likewise, Einstein couldn't accept the idea that God would "throw dice", but, (for the meantime) has been proven wrong.
Getting back to the point, God is incomprehensible. Get used to it.
God created the universe, and life, and the rules.
We live in the universe God created, and we are life, we just haven't figured out the rules yet, and may continue to struggle with understanding our ONE universe until humanity's demise.
Two out of three ain't bad.
I can imagine the last humans standing on a distant planet at the edge of the universe.
They are praying to a God they believe exists, even though they have not been able to prove it, mathematically or scientifically.
They are asking God to grant them more time, they are sure they can figure it out, if they just could have some more time...
Not in mathematics. "Absence of evidence" is only "absence of evidence." In forensics, the quoted statement is true.
Not necessarily true. As the uncertainty principle is a consequence of Fourier analysis, most electrical engineers would have seen the same thing in non-QM settings (as would mathematicians working in Fourier analysis.)
I would have chosen a different title for this thread. At least creationists and evolutionists can agree this is impossible.
A quark is the four dimensional pixel defining the resolution of reality. When it's "off" it's potential; when it's "on", it's material, and, depending on which are "off" and "on" in the matrix of all quarks, determines what element is present by determining which atom is represented.
Whether a quark is "off" or "on" is controlled by (not the conscious) mind. This is why it's impossible to measure measurements.
So there. 
Not so with the Evolutionists. They indulge is a high level of purported certainty not only without experimental verification but in spite of its lack. When physicists speculate, they so label it. Not so the Evolutionists. Darwinism with be respected as science just as soon as it begins behaving according to its rules. Until then, it will remain a field rife with rank speculation offered to the world as fact and dominated by those with ulterior agendas such as Gould and Dawkins. I've come to believe that the Darwinists are bright enough to know all this and that they are therefore not motivated by the search for scientific truth.
I'm now reading Modern Physics and Ancient Faith by Stephen M. Barr, professor of physics at the Bartol Research Institute, University of Delaware (Thanks, bb). Barr just decimates atheism in a very convincing way. This book should be required reading for all those who endeavor to understand reality.
Thanks for the fine post, A-G.
The only ointment on this fly is that author must by definition attempt to divine the Divine; to plumb the depth and breadth and scope of God-ness, which (as mortals) we are incapable of by 1:10,000,000,000th (or more), but nonetheless a task which only the most brilliant and humble are driven to undertake with sincere conviction.
That said, an amazing introspection and deserving of a level of colloquy I doubt you'll find available from most here on FreeRepublic... with a couple possible exceptions... :-)
God bless you. For what it's worth, you have earned my eternal respect. You're one surprising Alamo Girl.