9 months later and nothing’s changed.
6 Likes
Then the theory is wrong because there is no logical link between quantum effects occurring in microtubules in neurons and God magically creating life.
I did read it. You are saying that groups of species do not share a common ancestor, but were instead supernaturally created by God.
" Common design : discontinuities are real, basic types were constructed (using a bottom-up and top-down process) from different locations and times around the globe, Adam and Eve story is true, and there is no LUCA or there is only FUCA."
We already have a natural process that perfectly explains the observations. Inventing a supernatural cause that exactly mimics the natural cause for no apparent reason is not a viable explanation.
3 Likes
Again assuming that the theory is correct, your unjustified leap here is to equate consciousness with a creator God, when that’s not at all what your reference talks about.
Your theory of separate creation is in fact an alternative to evolution.
Doesn’t matter. Teaching your theory would not survive a court challenge.
What you think are major changes have, in the past, been nothing more than minor changes of wording that affect nothing, explain nothing. Is this different? If so, how?
That doesn’t work. Modules are not nested hierarchies.
It does not. And distant relatives, according to you, aren’t even relatives. Horizontal transfer between separate creations is implausible and would not be expected to produce a nested hierarchy.
Neither of your attempts to explain nested hierarchy actually explains nested hierarchy.
You fail to understand the difference between “sequence similarities” and nested hierarchy, and that’s true not just for closely related species but for more inclusive taxa as well. Nor does morphological change have much to do with that question except that the morphological tree closely tracks the molecular tree.
The common design model explains nothing, so far. It can’t be taught because it’s religion, not science. It shouldn’t be taught because if it were science it would be bad science.
3 Likes
Gibberish.
First, the Kitzmiller ruling is a straightforward application of conventional church/state legal standards. There’s nothing at all novel about it and one doesn’t need it as a "precedent’ in order to strike down similar First Amendment violations.
Second, I have no idea what you mean by the expression “take precedent,” but I’m guessing that you’ve fuddled up the expression “take precedence” with the legal concept of “precedent,” which does not speak well for your grasp of legal issues.
Third, federal case law precedents are applicable nationwide. Most precedent is advisory, rather than binding, and that’s what this (and, indeed, all US District Court rulings, everywhere) is. But that doesn’t mean a court faced with a similar case will not turn to it.
Fourth, your grasp of legal concepts is looking even worse after that “prove this in court in front of U.S. Supreme Court judges” remark. Holy cow. Nobody proves anything in the Supreme Court, because other than in original jurisdiction matters, the Court is not ever the finder of fact. There’s literally no evidence heard at all, much less proof of facts in issue there. The members of the Court are Justices, not “Judges.” And there is never, ever, any requirement that a party get a ruling from the US Supreme Court before being regarded as having a valid legal argument.
Look: people have demonstrated to you again and again that your thinking, so far as it purports to touch scientific issues, is bizarre, sloppy, disjointed and disconnected from reality. You have demonstrated again and again that you are incapable of understanding or constructively responding to any of these objections. And now you’re a bloody legal scholar and it is just more of the same – incoherent, uninformed, bizarre and ill-expressed, to boot. If what you seek is pity, you may find it. But if what you seek is endorsement of some aspect of this blather, I think you will be disappointed.
6 Likes
It’s not the sample size, it’s a matter of curriculum. Quantum Mechanics is not a standard topic for middle/high school students because very few children of that age can understand it.
Also a topic beyond middle and high school students.
Well for starters, Luskin provided no citations to any of this marvellous work being done at the behest (and funding) of the Discovery Institute, so there is no way to verify any of his claims. Second, he’s claiming work published in major journals, which is highly suspect. Third, it’s perfectly obvious there is no real science work being done in ID; there are no inventions, no new discoveries, no patents, no medical treatments, no real results from ID theory. There isn’t even a working theory of ID in the first place.
String theory is ALSO not taught in the usual high school curriculum, which make my point. Thank you.
5 Likes
I noticed from almost everyone’s last responses that we are really not getting anywhere with this topic. So I have decided to redo what I presented in the introduction to make sure we stay on the same page. In the process of doing this, I am hoping you guys will STOP strawing manning my case and STOP making responses that are not consistent with this topic.
More importantly, everyone who has claimed that my theory is unscientific or inherently violates the First Amendment will have the burden of proof to demonstrates this assertion. I am going to follow the scientific method that is described in wikipedia: Scientific method - Wikipedia
Observation(s)
(A) Quantum structure is in cognition
(B) Wave-function collapse depends on a causally disconnected choice
(C) The wave-function is real
(D) Since the wave-function is real, it’s also non-local
(E) The wave-function collapse is non-local
(F) The Similarities between Genomes and Natural languages
(G) The Appearance of Common Design
(H) Reproduction of the Common Design Patterns
(I) The Alleged design flaws that were found to be optimal
(THIS IS NOT A SYLOGISM )
Formulation of a question
Does all currently living organisms have a common design that can be traced back to a common designer?
Hypothesis
A Perfect Common Designer created and developed life on earth because a precursor consciousness must exist to create life of any kind.
Definitions
Consciousness: Self-collapsing wave-function (i.e. creation of matter and energy)
Common Designer: A personal being who plans the form or structure of something before it is made and has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness.
Perfect: unchanging character and will
What? A Self-collapsing Universal wave-function
How? Proton-tunneling and quantum entanglement
Why? Make sure basic types of organisms survive, reproduce, and fill the biosphere
Where? Every mutation is directly and indirectly caused for a specific purpose
When? From viruses leading up to humans and iongoing today
Who? Jesus Christ who is both Divine and human
Null hypothesis: Life is created and developed by purely unguided bottom-up processes
(A) Metabolism-first pre-biotic experiments did not produce a self-replicating molecule within a given environment
(B) The Lenski’s experiment did not produce the same positive result in his 11 other populations.
(C) The Lenski experiment did not produce speciation or an entire genome of information (i.e. tells the cell how to maintain information or how to pass it on to the next generation).
Null hypothesis rejected
Universal Common Design Model
Before the leftover meteorites were clumped together to form the primitive earth 3.8 billion years ago, virus-like RNA molecules were created within the deep-sea hypothermal vents of the earth. Then, some of these virus-like RNA molecules were naturally selected into different species of unicellular organisms and they underwent a heavy amount of HGT from the viruses that were created within the deep-sea oceans.
Then, the designer re-used these microbes, modules, and chemical constituents to separately construct basic types of animals from different locations and times around the globe. These basic types would be able to adapt to changing environments and diversify into kinds over long epochs of time.
This would involve the designer employing many familiar mechanisms, such as HGT, to facilitate this process and address a common set of problems facing unrelated organisms that are undergoing natural selection. As a result, we would see biochemical and morphological similarities among all living things that naturally give the appearance of Universal common ancestry.
What are basic types?
They are families and within each of these families contains different genera (such as, dog/fox/ wolf) and each genus contains one or more species.
This means that families are created (not genera or species) where there would be a basic type of dogs, which are the ancestor of all the different kinds of dogs that evolved afterwards. Therefore, discontinuities in the fossil record are considered families according to the common design model.
How many groups of basic types are there?
11+
Which group of organisms are considered basic types?
Avalon, Cambrian fauna, Ordovician, Nekton animals, Odontodes vertebrates, Land vertebrates, Insects, Dinosaurs/birds, Placental mammals, Genus Homo, and one Human pair.
Why do shared similar ERV’s between species exhibit a nested hierarchy? (i.e. Teleology)
ERV sequences must resemble endogenized retroviruses in order to act as a defense mechanism against incoming harmful viruses.
Why do shared similar pseudogenes between species exhibit a nested hierarchy? (i.e. Teleology)
The ceRNA hypothesis elegantly explains the widespread existence of pseudogenes in genomes and their structural similarity to intact genes.
Predictions
(A) Family trees based on anatomical features will contradict family trees based on molecular similarities
(B) Many more examples of Functional pseudogenes and ERV’s will be found
(C) The rest of the non-coding regions of the DNA should reveal real sequencing differences between apes and humans as well as between other animal species based on how they are expressed in the regulatory genes rather than the genes that are present.
(D) Similar kinds from a basic type will have a common design that can be seen on a Linnaean Classification chart (i.e. hippos and whales). However, the differences between them will be due to the different design requirements that each need for their environment. The core of similarities starts at the Animal Kingdom and traces down into Mammalia.
(E) We will uncover optimal designs from alleged design flaws in nature
(F) The 14 other predictions from the Orch-OR theory of consciousness will be confirmed
Theoretical Problems
(A) Some predictions are unfalsifiable
(B) Lacks a predictive model for morphological changes in the fossil record
(C) Lacks an explanation for sequence similarities among close relatives
(D) [Insert objection]
Appendix (alleged design flaws)
Useless designs
Definition: A design that no longer has a function.
A wealth of discovery built on the Human Genome Project — by the numbers (nature.com)
Bad designs
Definition: A design that appears to be poorly constructed to achieve a particular goal involving the survival and reproductive capabilities of that organism.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 158102 (2010) - Retinal Glial Cells Enhance Human Vision Acuity (aps.org)
Cellular survival over genomic perfection | Science (sciencemag.org)
Perfect use of imperfection | Nature
Sinister designs
Definition: A feature of an organism that is allegedly designed to impede on that organism or other organisms’ ability to survive, reproduce, and fit an environmental niche.
Nociceptive Sensitization Reduces Predation Risk: Current Biology (cell.com)
Adaptive rewiring aggravates the effects of species loss in ecosystems | Nature Communications
Relax, I was merely pointing out why you cannot conflate “should not be taught” with “cannot be taught” in this topic. This means that the lack of scientific consensus does not support your objection on why they cannot be taught together.
On a side note though… Everything you just said above is not only believed by many creationists and ID proponents about the scientific community but they have accused them of doing the same thing you mentioned.
So you are going to have to prove that what you said here only applies to my position NOT simply assert it like you have been doing everytime.
No, this is your assumption. Again, how do you know it’s not the other way around where there are very few teachers that can understand it. In fact, let me show you what I found on the web:
'One of the biggest challenges to growing the camp and getting quantum information science (QSI) into high schools is the teachers.
It’s not that teachers are unwilling. They’re simply not trained. And the word “quantum” often elicits hesitancy, if not dread. That’s because the word “quantum” often carries with it the cultural idea – and misconception – that it is super complicated and incomprehensible.’
High School students tackle quantum physics at summer camp (aisd.net)
Apparently, not anymore:
“She partnered with others to start Quantum for All, a project designed to help K-12 teachers and students understand how quantum mechanics is the basis for current and future jobs. The project, based at UTA and funded by the National Science Foundation, also lobbied the Texas Education Agency to add quantum mechanics to the state’s science requirements. Thanks to their efforts, quantum is getting added to the TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills) in 2023.”
That’s not from what I read in this study:
“This realization solidifies the grounds for using modeling formalisms from these engineering subdisciplines to be applied to biological systems. While we document several examples where this is already happening, our goal is that identifying the cell as an embedded computing system would motivate and facilitate further discovery through more widespread use of the modeling formalisms described here.”
Survey of Engineering Models for Systems Biology (hindawi.com)
Quantum structure is in all matter and energy.
Wave-function collapse does not require a conscious choice. A photon hitting a stray particle of matter will collapse the wave function of the photon. No consciousness or choice is needed to collapse wave functions.
Subjective similarities mean nothing. If a cloud looks like a duck that doesn’t mean the cloud is a duck.
You are assuming your conclusion.
Empty assertion.
That’s not a null hypothesis. A null hypothesis is a set of potential observations that would falsify your hypothesis. The most obvious observation that falsifies Common Design is the nested hierarchy, among many other observations.
4 Likes
And yet rather than address my points you engaged in a invidious comparison with the abduction of Native American children.
You have yet to explain why something that has no place in science lessons should be forced on schools against the wishes of pretty much everyone involved.
Evolution has earned it’s place in the science classroom. Evolution IS generally accepted mainstream science and even creationists would have trouble denying that. Neither creationism nor ID has met that criterion. Nor have your ideas.
If your ideas are part of “local culture” anywhere it is for you to show it. The fact that the ideas are your rather than ideas endorsed by even the mainstream of creationism and ID also argues against it.
2 Likes
Everyone has noticed that you have never gotten anywhere with this topic. But that’s not new. You are incapable of understanding the issues and it makes discussion with you quite unproductive.
Oh, do they, now? Your grasp of the First Amendment issues is, as I have pointed out, atrocious. Teaching religion in schools is unconstitutional. And “burden of proof” is a procedural construct, meaningful in courts (though applicable only to issues of fact and not, as here, issues of law) but generally useless in practical questions; but if anyone, when a barking-mad approach to biology is proposed, has the “burden of proof,” the one doing the barking is the one with the burden. Myself, I think “burden of proof” is just another notion you don’t properly understand, and which has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
4 Likes
It is fortunately not necessary to read your lengthy series of links in order to get the gist of your argument. You are attempting to justify the possibility of a Designer bc of quantum physics (?!), but that is just an attempt to dissimulate. You can claim literally anything down at that level. Why not use your same arguments and claim that a Flying Spaghetti Monster or a Celestial Teapot are “out there … somewhere!” I say that if a Designer could exist bc of your argument, then so can those things. And literally anything else.
Your idea is intended to not be testable or disprovable. That is why it is not science and that is why it shouldn’t be taught as science. Go get some evidence that quantum mumbo jumbo can hide a Designer from us (and while you are at it, show why a Flying Spaghetti Monster or a Celestial Teapot are not possible). Show the world these things and then we will talk after you get your Noble Prize and Templeton Prize and lots of other rewards.
4 Likes
What? A hypothesis is a set of potential observations? Beg to differ. Observations support or reject hypotheses. They aren’t hypotheses themselves. A null hypothesis is an alternative potential explanation for observations. It seems to me that @Meerkat_SK5’s null hypothesis, while poorly stated, is a reasonable one for his purpose; it effectively says that there is no divine intervention. The problem lies elsewhere: that his main hypothesis is vague, incoherent, and untestable. He proposes, for example, that every single mutation is divinely caused. How could you possibly tell?
I’m going to stop you right there. Your hypothesis is incoherent. It’s not even a hypothesis; it’s a syllogism, and the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise.
That definition is itself incoherent.
As has been pointed out before, whenever you bring this up, most species do not survive; the overwhelming majority go extinct. God doesn’t seem very good at achieving his goal.
Not a prediction of anything you have claimed.
Not a prediction either. Nor is D.
This isn’t a prediction either unless you can provide some kind of criterion for “kind”. And it’s been falsified by abundant evidence. You are an African ape. Get over it.
Incidentally, your leap from “conciousness is fundamental” to “Jesus is Lord” is good evidence that your theory is inherently religious and therefore cannot be taught in public schools.
3 Likes
A good point. I should say that a testable hypothesis should have potential observations that are tied to it. The same would apply to a null hypothesis. If there are no potential observations that would falsify the explanation then it isn’t a scientific hypothesis.
1 Like
ID theory should not be taught in classes. It can be taught, but we can teach that the Earth is flat, too. We shouldn’t teach that the Earth is flat, and we shouldn’t teach ID theory.
I think that those of us disagreeing with you would be happy to leave the discussion there.
If @Dan_Eastwood, a high school and college biology educator, does not have access to a large enough sample size and is not qualified to make statements about the average American highschooler or middleschooler and their ability to comprehend mathematics, why exactly do you think that a quantum biologist would be able to?
Educating is an entirely different domain than research science, and it is a domain that is best in the hands of educators; people who have the expertise in their field and the understanding of adolescent psychology to make sure that the curriculum works. I don’t think that the American education system is particularly good, but putting the curriculum out of the hands of teachers and into the hands of “quantum biologists” is certainly NOT going to improve it.
Further, do Penrose, Gödel, Lucas, or any other consciousness theorists actually want their arguments taught in schools? I haven’t seen any claim that they do, especially without some sort of religious or egoist motivation.
Additionally, ALL of the evidence you provide to reject your null (I will get to that later on) has to do with abiogenesis/ the early formation of life. In most highschool biology textbooks, that topic gets less than half a page. Would you be happy with a few paragraphs mentioning ID theory in curriculum ongoing? Because from this discussion, it seems like you want ID to be taught equally with the theory of evolution as a whole, or even have its own classes devoted to it. The title of this conversation is "design and descent, not “design and RNA world.” if you want ID theory to have equal footing with the entire theory of descent, you need to provide evidence that addresses the entire theory of descent. Alleging that you “disproved” one paragraph from a textbook so now you should get to split the whole thing halvsies is silly.
Null hypothesis: Life was created and developed by only unguided bottom-up processes
You have a poor null hypothesis, and a poorly supported hypothesis.
Your hypothesis states that a designer is supported “because consciousness is fundamental,” so your null hypothesis needs to involve fundamental consciousness. Four of your eight observations (F through I) have to do with the theoretical common designer being perfect, so your null hypothesis should also involve that. Additionally, your null hypothesis does not mention Jesus Christ as the common designer, but your hypothesis does.
From that, there are at least three fail states for your hypothesis that you did not include in your null hypothesis: A) the designer is not Jesus Christ, B) The designer is not perfect as opposed to a general force, and C) consciousness is not fundamental.
You don’t provide any evidence to support or these claims, and as I mentioned earlier, the only evidence you do provide to reject your null has to do with the origin of life.
You cannot just assume the rest of your hypothesis is true and start teaching it in science classes, you need to provide evidence. Let’s go through the three fail states.
A) You have not tried anywhere in your model to supply evidence to support that the theoretical designer is. Until you provide observations that show the theoretical designer in your model is the same person as the Jesus in biblical text, then you should consider your hypothesis as unsupported.
B) I would also argue that none of your evidences for a perfect common designer necessitate the designer to be perfect. I’ll go through them below, but since none of these contradict your null hypothesis, you can’t accept your alternative hypothesis as supported here either.
The similarity between genetic languages and natural languages does not necessitate a common designer. “Languages,” genetic or otherwise, are based on universal constants. Mathematics, for example is an abstract concept that exists with or without language, but it is only expressible through language with “letters” (numerals) “grammar” (order of operations) and “sentences” (equations). “Languages” are similar because they express consistency, and consistency can exist without a designer. Further, consistency can exist without a perfect designer.
Phenotype (or “design”) is the expression of genotype. Genetics are hereditary, so by definition, the appearance of common phenotype implies the appearance of common ancestry. If ID theorists could show that the two are separate, then the appearance of common design would support ID, but you have admitted yourself that ID does not account for nested hierarchies.
(H) Reproduction of the Common Design Patterns
This is a circular argument. You can’t argue that replicating RNA molecules imply supernatural design, because they operate under natural laws. And, even if you could, this does not imply a perfect designer.
(I) The Alleged design flaws that were found to be optimal
Organisms that are optimal to their environment is a prediction of natural selection. Species do go extinct due to competition, because not every population is equally optimal at exploiting the ecological niche it exists in. Optimal is relative, and importantly, optimal does not equal perfect.
C) I also don’t think you have sufficiently supported your assertion that consciousness is fundamental.
The question is not what philosophical ideal you hold to, it’s whether that philosophical ideal can be taught in science classes. You need to include evidence that quantum mechanics are immaterial and non-natural, before you reject your null.
You haven’t done that, but more importantly I don’t think that you can. Quantum mechanics is studied using material instruments, described using natural mathematics, and implemented with physical products. If you hold that the mind/God flows into the brain/material rather the brain/material flowing into the mind/God, then by your definition, material things should not affect quantum things, yes?
5 Likes
From the study referenced in the intro:
“No naive realistic picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum could be seen as showing particle- or wave-like behavior would depend on a causally disconnected choice. It is therefore suggestive to abandon such pictures altogether.”
[emphasis added]
I made changes to last post. Look at bottom called “Appendix”
Why should I if you are not going to address the topic at hand first (unless you are conceding the topic). Besides, I can always create a new topic like that later.
Because you have not proved it has no place in science yet.
That is not true. First off, the theory I present is technically not Fuz Rana’s, Winston’s, Roger Penrose’s or even mine but proposed first by Richard Owen. Instead, what I am presenting are models, which includes my origin of life model, that support Owen’s general theory of a Universal common design from a Universal common designer.
Secondly, this theory from Owen has not only stood the test of time ever since it was proposed, but it existed BEFORE the idea of Common descent was proposed. Now, it has also earned it’s place in science classrooms as I showed today.
I went back and made all these changes after your critiques here. Just go back and read the last post.
The ID theory that I described on this forum is virtually the same as mainstream evolution. The only two differneces is that there were at least 11 separate creation events instead of just one and top-down processes were involved in those separate creation events. That’s it!
The flat-earth theory is not only falsified but fundamentally different than the round earth theory and can’t be said to be an improvement of it.
As I suggested above, not quite. Instead, I want them to add quantum mechanical mechasims into the textbooks like they did before with other mechanisms of evolution in the past in order to give an honest take of reality to students rather than a dishonest one.
No, I already explained in the introduction on why I don’t have to do any of this. I will just copy and paste what said again…
Because the evidence in quantum physics is only compatible with a form of idealism, we don’t have to prove or assume some extra supernatural force/substance exists first in order to use God as a potential explanation for a natural phenomenon.
More importantly, we have good evidence that suggests God is a perfect human. This means that we don’t have to worry about using an unfalsifiable theory that involves an omnipotent human because a perfect being is immutable and cannot violate his own nature in comparison to imperfect beings, which can change and violate those principles.
In other words, the immutable trait this particular designer possesses offsets the omnipotent trait this designer would also have to possess if true. This is what makes the difference on why we can treat an omni-potent God/Jesus the same way as other intelligent agents (Neanderthals, modern humans, aliens,etc.) when we want to use an intelligent cause to explain a phenomena over a mindless force. Thus, all candidates are considered natural but immaterial causes that we can test because consciousness is supposed to be fundamental not classical physics.
So we can ask this question without being too presumptuous:
“Does all currently living organisms have a common design that can be traced back to a common designer?”
I agree. Confirming the prediction, I mentioned in my last post would provide evidence that this perfect common designer is Jesus.
In his book Why Evolution is True , evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne claims that " Imperfect design is the mark of evolution; in fact it’s precisely what we expect from evolution." (p. 81) He makes this prediction because “[n]ew parts evolve from old ones, and have to work well with the parts that have already evolved.”
From Wiki:
"The Immutability of God is an attribute that "God is unchanging in his character, will, and covenant promises…
God’s immutability defines all God’s other attributes: God is immutably wise, merciful, good, and gracious. The same may be said about God’s knowledge: God is almighty/omnipotent (having all power), God is omnipresent (present everywhere), God is omniscient (knows everything), eternally and immutably so. Infiniteness and immutability in God are mutually supportive and imply each other. An infinite and changing God is inconceivable; indeed, it is a contradiction in definition." [Emphasis added]
I have done this already in the introduction. Just go back and read it. I also made a bunch of changes to my last post so make sure you go back and read that again as well.
Since those points were reasons why your ideas couldn’t be taught in schools they were certainly part of the topic on hand.
I said that it has no place in science lessons, and the reasons are obvious. Indeed even “Creation Science” and Intelligent Design try to avoid explicitly endorsing Christianity in the hope of getting past First Amendment law. And that’s only one reason.
That is disingenuous at best. The idea that you attribute to Richard Owen is hardly the entirety of what you want taught - and most of it is indeed your ideas.
It was rejected by science more than 100 years ago. So it hardly stood the test of time and doesn’t belong in science classes. You might make the same argument for Ptolemaic epicycles, which also do not belong in science classes.
1 Like
I went back. Your hypothesis is better formed, but your argument is still incoherent. In fact it’s more incoherent than ever, and your description of “kinds” and “basic types” is self-contradictory. You learn nothing, engage with no arguments, know nothing about biology. The disconnect from reality is such that one must question your mental stability. I’m concerned that continuing to engage with you (attempt to engage, rather) will actually do you harm. So I’ll stop.
3 Likes
Then the study is wrong as shown by basic observation. A particle of dust is not making a choice, and it collapses the wave function of photons.
1 Like
Meerkat does not understand the study. The “choice” is causally disconnected but it is not a conscious choice at all.
The choice is performed by a quantum random number generator (QRNG). (Details are given in SI Text).
3 Likes
Teaching kiddie QI (note: not QM) to get kids interested in studying science and math is a fine idea. The prerequisites needed for a deeper understanding at the high school level is not. Requirements are multivariable calculus, probability theory, sample theory, linear algebra and matrix theory, ordinary and partial differential equations, Fourier analysis, and advanced physics leading up to QM. Even if you start with very talented high school students that is years of schooling. A few very bright undergraduates will accomplish some of this, but some of these topics are taught at the graduate level, which is more years of schooling. Nor can we start students at a younger age, because most kids don’t develop the capacity for abstract thought needed for algebra, geometry, etc., until they are teenagers (I know this because I married a developmental psychologist).
TL;DR: Teach any deeper understanding of QM to high school student is preposterous; they simply are not ready for it.
Not sure what you read, because that article has nothing to do with ID. It’s a survey of how human engineering disciplines relate to biology, and how engineering can relate to systems biology. Nowhere is there any mention of an unknown and unknowable Designer doing any useful work. This is another fine example of the work of others being claimed for ID. IF the authors wanted to make any such claims, they would have put it in writing for the publication. Again, this is a reprehensible practice, and one of the reasons why no one in science takes ID seriously.
PS: Hindawi Publishing is a pay-to-publish house and has been accused of predatory practices. That doesn’t necessarily make it a bad paper, but it’s not off to a good start.
TL;DR: ID needs to do its work, rather than trying to steal from others.
AND here we see the reversal of burden of proof. Even ignoring the teaching religion in schools aspect, ID still has no patents, no inventions, etc… It doesn’t do any of the useful things that real science can do.
PS: Rather than arguing with people on the internet, why don’t you try submitting to a journal? Seriously - you’ve had a great deal of informal peer review here, I think you should take the next step.
4 Likes