Math Logic Disproves Evoution

ROFL!!! Look where else this guy has been trying to spread this junk!

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?&act=ST&f=24&t=22040
(Seriously, did you think anyone on a board dedicated to physics would buy into your garbage?!)

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=12&t=517&m=31
(Yeah, those guys really believed you!!)

Seriously... are you just trolling any forum you can find, trying to get ANYONE to believe this junk?

Jester4kicks said:

Don't try to make sense of it... he's been copy/pasting the same bunch of garbage in this thread and over in the other thread: http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=47460883&posted=1#post47460883

It's pretty obvious that he doesn't have the faintest clue about what he's trying to prove.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's garbage. Why are you threatened someone posting their views in multiple places to get feedback? Just because you and I and others may disagree, this doesn't make him a troll. He said his goal was to sharpen his own views. I fail to see what's so horrible about that.

Calminian said:

I don't think it's garbage. Why are you threatened someone posting their views in multiple places to get feedback? Just because you and I and others may disagree, this doesn't make him a troll. He said his goal was to sharpen his own views. I fail to see what's so horrible about that.

Click to expand...

It's not threatening... it's annoying. It's annoying because he's NOT trying to "sharpen his views"... he's trying to make rediculous statements based on complete misunderstandings of completely un-related topics.

It would be like telling you that gravity exists because of the color red. It's almost painful to try and wrap your head around because the statement is so rediculous.

Furthermore, developing one's views requires discussion. He's not actually discussing anything. When he gets cornered, he just cites another line of gibberish.

Here's a normal debate:
"I believe A because of B, C, and D"
"No, you're mistaken, because C is actually this, and E, F, G, and H support a different position"
"Hmmm, well I see your point with E, F, G, and H. Let me review C and then revise my initial position"

With him, it's more like:
"I think A because of B."
"Umm, no, you're completely misinterpretting B"
"I think C because of D"
"No, now you're confused about D... and you still haven't addressed what I said about B"
"I think E because of F"
"Cut it out! You're just rambling now!"
"G, H, I, J, K..... ¥"

Again... it's just annoying. It's not discussion, it's not debate, it's not developing an argument... it's just rambling and hoping someone will buy it.

no1nose said:

__________________


Thanks, I think I might be on to something and I am excited about that. Feedback is good personal attack is just off topic.

Click to expand...

The only thing you're catching onto is a failing grade in physics, biology, chemistry, and history.

Jester4kicks said:

It's not threatening... it's annoying. It's annoying because he's NOT trying to "sharpen his views"... he's trying to make rediculous statements based on complete misunderstandings of completely un-related topics.

Click to expand...

Why are you so annoyed? Even if he's misunderstanding, I don't see why this is so disturbing for you. You're actually trolling to try to prevent someone from trolling. Dude, seriously, you have issues.

Jester4kicks said:

It would be like telling you that gravity exists because of the color red. It's almost painful to try and wrap your head around because the statement is so rediculous.

Click to expand...

If that's what you've gotten from his post, I have a feeling a lot of it is going over your head. Science is filled with necessary philosophical presuppositions, such as the reliability of the senses. There are also issue of historical and future uniformity and all kinds of other ideas that are not subject to scientific testing. People knowledgeable in the science often overlook the philosophical foundations of scientific reasoning and topics like this are good, especially for the scientific minded.

Jester4kicks said:

Furthermore, developing one's views requires discussion. He's not actually discussing anything. When he gets cornered, he just cites another line of gibberish.

Click to expand...

Er, okay, well I haven't heard him do this, but I do hear gibberish coming from you.

Jester4kicks said:

Here's a normal debate:
"I believe A because of B, C, and D"
"No, you're mistaken, because C is actually this, and E, F, G, and H support a different position"
"Hmmm, well I see your point with E, F, G, and H. Let me review C and then revise my initial position"

Click to expand...

Eek. You're obviously not a student of formal logic.

Jester4kicks said:

Again... it's just annoying. It's not discussion, it's not debate, it's not developing an argument... it's just rambling and hoping someone will buy it.

Click to expand...

Who appointed you discussion sherif?

Jester4kicks said:

The only thing you're catching onto is a failing grade in physics, biology, chemistry, and history.

Click to expand...

Actually, just from listening to you, your issue is not the sciences, but philosophical reasoning. Science is not the same as logic. Science is not the same as math. I think a misunderstanding of this might explain why you're getting so excited.

Calminian said:

Why are you so annoyed? Even if he's misunderstanding, I don't see why this is so disturbing for you. You're actually trolling to try to prevent someone from trolling. Dude, seriously, you have issues.

Click to expand...

I guess I get annoyed when someone makes completely unreasonable and irrational statements about something I hold dear. If I were to go to any section of this forum and make the same type of irrational and rediculous statements about jesus or god, I'm fairly certain the response would be much worse than my reaction to him.

Hey Nose, there's something you could study; relativity!

Calminian said:

If that's what you've gotten from his post, I have a feeling a lot of it is going over your head. Science is filled with necessary philosophical presuppositions, such as the reliability of the senses. There are also issue of historical and future uniformity and all kinds of other ideas that are not subject to scientific testing. People knowledgeable in the science often overlook the philosophical foundations of scientific reasoning and topics like this are good, especially for the scientific minded.

Click to expand...

I have no problem discussing philosophy. However, I wouldn't attempt to use Plato's forms as a way of disproving gravity... and that's essentially what he's doing. If you want to approach the matter from a philisophical perspective, let's do that... but don't try to take a vague philosophy and apply it to concretes within math and science.

And yes, I use the word "concrete" for a specific purpose. Science doesn't presume the accuracy of the senses, it requires empirical evidence that can either be replicated or reliably-predicted. My vision might be horrible, and your hearing might be even worse... but when we both drop the same bowling ball from the same height and the same conditions, we should have the same result.

Calminian said:

Er, okay, well I haven't heard him do this, but I do hear gibberish coming from you.

Click to expand...

Try reading the other thread.

Calminian said:

Eek. You're obviously not a student of formal logic.

Click to expand...

Granted, if I were to show that example to my best friend (spent the last 4 semesters studying logic), he might cringe... if he thought I was identifying variables in a logic system. I'm not setting up a formula, I'm pointing out the very basic structure of a logical debate. You present your argument, then present your basis for your argument. To counter, someone else may point out inaccuracies in your own analysis of the supporting points, or they may introduce other evidence that overwhelmingly contradicts the evidence you presented.

Calminian said:

Who appointed you discussion sherif?

Click to expand...

Um... a couple guys by the name of Merriam, or one guy by the name of Webster... depending on the date of the original entry...

Main Entry: dis·cus·sion Pronunciation: \di-ˈskə-shən\ Function: noun Date: 14th century 1 : consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate
2 : a formal treatment of a topic in speech or writing

Calminian said:

Actually, just from listening to you, your issue is not the sciences, but philosophical reasoning. Science is not the same as logic. Science is not the same as math. I think a misunderstanding of this might explain why you're getting so excited.

Click to expand...

Science relies on logic, just as science relies on math. Unless you want to tell me how you would teach a physics class without any reference to triginometry or calculus.

Finally, as I said before, I have no problem with philisophical reasoning... but if he's trying to discuss philosophy, let's keep it to philosophy.

Jester4kicks said:

Science doesn't presume the accuracy of the senses,

Click to expand...

Bingo! I knew it. The number of scientists (and science worshippers) I come across that are confused about this is staggering. Yes, science does assume the accuracy of the senses, a priori. This explains a lot. Scientists are very good at what they do, but they are often very poor at reasoning once they get out of their field. I think this is why threads like these offend you so. It is analogous to challenging ones religion because, to the science worshipper, these assumptions are religious. I don't know if I agree with everything put forth in this OP, but I do know that many like yourself conflate science with epistemology. To them there is no distinction. Thus you limit yourself to the unproven assumptions of science.

Jester4kicks said:

Granted, if I were to show that example to my best friend (spent the last 4 semesters studying logic), he might cringe... if he thought I was identifying variables in a logic system. I'm not setting up a formula, I'm pointing out the very basic structure of a logical debate. You present your argument, then present your basis for your argument. To counter, someone else may point out inaccuracies in your own analysis of the supporting points, or they may introduce other evidence that overwhelmingly contradicts the evidence you presented.

Click to expand...

All I can say is, you are violating this very principle by trolling.

Jester4kicks said:

Um... a couple guys by the name of Merriam, or one guy by the name of Webster... depending on the date of the original entry...

Click to expand...

I think you've been dubbed by presumptions and conflation.

Jester4kicks said:

Science relies on logic, just as science relies on math. Unless you want to tell me how you would teach a physics class without any reference to triginometry or calculus.

Click to expand...

I never said this. Again, this is where you get confused. Yes, science must be logical, but logic need not be scientific. There is nothing illogical about miracles, but there is something unscientific about them.

Jester4kicks said:

Finally, as I said before, I have no problem with philisophical reasoning... but if he's trying to discuss philosophy, let's keep it to philosophy.

Click to expand...

Again, you still don't get it. Science is built on a foundation of philosophical beliefs, methodological naturalism, methodological uniformitarianism, the accuracy of the senses, etc.. None of these assumptions can be verified or falsified by science as that would result in circular reasoning—basing a conclusion on a starting premise.

Sorry nose, I know this is way off topic.

Calminian said:

Bingo! I knew it. The number of scientists (and science worshippers) I come across that are confused about this is staggering. Yes, science does assume the accuracy of the senses, a priori. This explains a lot. Scientists are very good at what they do, but they are often very poor at reasoning once they get out of their field. I think this is why threads like these offend you so. It is analogous to challenging ones religion because, to the science worshipper, these assumptions are religious. I don't know if I agree with everything put forth in this OP, but I do know that many like yourself conflate science with epistemology. To them there is no distinction. Thus you limit yourself to the unproven assumptions of science.

Click to expand...

Nice way of cutting my statement short and then twisting it around.

First, how about you list some of these "unproven assumptions" of science? As I have already stated; science is objective, not subjective. A theory is not sound until it has been tested and repeatedly produced predictable results. Even then, other scientists will continue to test and develop the theory based on their own experiments. All of this removes any form of subjectivity from the process. If I'm a scientist, and I have blurred vision (literally or metaphorically), the results of my experiments will not be consistent with the experiments of other scientists. From there, it becomes a matter of determining possible causes of error, and then experimenting further to determine the truth.

Calminian said:

All I can say is, you are violating this very principle by trolling.

Click to expand...

How am I trolling?

Calminian said:

I think you've been dubbed by presumptions and conflation.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the dictionary can really be a pain when people actually use it....

Calminian said:

I never said this. Again, this is where you get confused. Yes, science must be logical, but logic need not be scientific. There is nothing illogical about miracles, but there is something unscientific about them.

Click to expand...

What a wonderful example for this topic! I believe you have hit the nail on the head!

You are absolutely right, logic can be applied to things that are not scientific. However, you can't mix-and-match to suit your own purposes.

For example:
As you said, miracles are not necessarily illogical, even if they are not scientific. However, in order to accept miracles as logical, you must accept the idea that supernatural forces may exist outside of the bounds of nature, and that those forces are not confined to the laws of physics.

Ok, that's fine, but if you accept that, then the nature of the conversation changes... since anything that would not otherwise make sense could just be attributed to the supernatural. Again, these types of discussions may have their purposes.

However, you can't take the results of that line of logic and then suddenly apply them to the scientific world.

Let me see if I can elaborate.

If you and I were to have a discussion about wheat catching fire, I might make the argument that wheat cannot spontaneously catch on fire without an ignition source. You might then say that god could make this happen if he chose to manifest a miracle. Now, if I'm willing to accept your suggestion that a supernatural being could do such a thing, I must be willing to accept all the other implications that go along with a supernatural being. From there, we might discuss motives for such an act, or the nature of such a being...

However... at the end of the conversation, we couldn't turn to a scientist and tell him that wheat can spontaneously combust without an ignition source. We would have no scientific basis for the claim.

We had a philisophical conversation... not a scientific conversation. Our conclusions are limited to the realm of philosophy. No matter how hard we try, those same conclusions cannot automatically be applied to the natural world of science.

Calminian said:

Again, you still don't get it. Science is built on a foundation of philosophical beliefs, methodological naturalism, methodological uniformitarianism, the accuracy of the senses, etc.. None of these assumptions can be verified or falsified by science as that would result in circular reasoning—basing a conclusion on a starting premise.

Click to expand...

Wait... did you just tell me, "science is based on A, B, and C... but you can't verify my claim either way because it would result in circular reasoning"??? You don't see a logical fallacy in that statement?

no1nose said:

I agree.

Jester4kicks just seems overwrought by any free thinking.

Here is something I thought of last night:

Besides being a math free zone the Theory of Evolution is also an “observer” free.

Relativity is referenced to an “observer”. Changes in time and mass and velocity are “observed” by an observer. In quantum physics the state of a system remains indeterminate until it is “observed”. In atomic systems if the observer looks for a wave a wave is observed, if a particle is “looked” for then a particle and not a wave is observed. Strange but true as they say.

However the Theory of Evolution has no provision for the role of an observer even though the changes that take place are at the atomic level where quantum realities should dominate. When one surveys the natural world and the changes that do occur one must notice the trend toward beauty. If changes in the natural world were completely random then the world around us would have all the beauty of a junk yard. Beauty in the natural world implies that these changes are driven by an observer. The lack of a role for an observer is yet one more piece of evidence against the Theory of Evolution as a valid description of the natural world.

Click to expand...

You touched on a couple key concepts here. Let me see if I can address them without over-complicating the issue.

First, you mentioned how changes in the natural world trend towards beauty. You then stated that randomness would result in a "junk yard". Correct me if I'm wrong here, but you seem to think that evolution implies every change is random. This is not correct. Although random genetic changes may occur, the changes will only benefit the species if they assist in survival, the chance of replication, or the product of replication. Thus, the random change ends up serving a very specific purpose.

The main point here is that life, as we know it, does not exist just because of random changes in genetic code. Life exists because life, itself, demands existence.

Second, you seem to think that the theory of evolution is invalid because there hasn't been anyone who has observed it from start to finish. (Again, please feel free to correct me if I misinterpretted your position)

What you seem to be forgetting is that scientists regularly develop theories based on what they have observed, what they continue to observe, and the predictions they make regarding those observations. Consider the science behind stars. You can read up on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star Astronomers have developed the means to determine the age, mass, and chemical composition of stars... all without the benefit of watching the formation, life, and death of a single star. We can make these types of observations because we can develop theories to explain what we see, and then we can apply those theories to other scenarios (in this case, other stars) to see if the theories produce the predicted results. When they don't, we know the theory is flawed, and scientists must examine it and develop it further.

Furthermore, human beings have observed changes in a species within their own lifespans. Check out the study of London's Peppered Moths. http://animals.about.com/cs/evolution/a/aa090901a.htm

At least this time, I understand what you are trying to suggest... but your suggestion assumes that scientists cannot draw conclusions about events in the past... and this simply isn't true.

Jester4kicks said:

First, how about you list some of these "unproven assumptions" of science?

Click to expand...

I just did!

Jester4kicks said:

As I have already stated; science is objective, not subjective.

Click to expand...

Oy, it's painful sometimes listening to scientists and their followers make statements like this. You simply don't understand the idea of presuppositions. Science is objective when it comes to ideas within the confines of its necessary presuppositions. Science is not objective when it comes to non uniformitarian causation such as miracles and even libertarian human choices. There's actually an article you should read by an atheist who agrees with me and admits to the necessary preclusion of miracles in scientific methodology.

Science and Miracles (1998)
Theodore M. Drange

You'll advance light years if you can grasp onto this.

Jester4kicks said:

How am I trolling?

Click to expand...

Look it up and you will see your picture.

Jester4kicks said:

For example:
As you said, miracles are not necessarily illogical, even if they are not scientific. However, in order to accept miracles as logical, you must accept the idea that supernatural forces may exist outside of the bounds of nature, and that those forces are not confined to the laws of physics.

Ok, that's fine, but if you accept that, then the nature of the conversation changes... since anything that would not otherwise make sense could just be attributed to the supernatural. Again, these types of discussions may have their purposes.

Click to expand...

You were doing okay up until the last portion. Miracles and non-uniform acts of God (and even humans) make perfect sense. There's nothing illogical about them at all.

Jester4kicks said:

However, you can't take the results of that line of logic and then suddenly apply them to the scientific world.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by scientific world?

Jester4kicks said:

If you and I were to have a discussion about wheat catching fire, I might make the argument that wheat cannot spontaneously catch on fire without an ignition source. You might then say that god could make this happen if he chose to manifest a miracle. Now, if I'm willing to accept your suggestion that a supernatural being could do such a thing, I must be willing to accept all the other implications that go along with a supernatural being. From there, we might discuss motives for such an act, or the nature of such a being...

However... at the end of the conversation, we couldn't turn to a scientist and tell him that wheat can spontaneously combust without an ignition source. We would have no scientific basis for the claim.

Click to expand...

I totally agree.

Jester4kicks said:

We had a philisophical conversation... not a scientific conversation.

Click to expand...

Which is what all origins conversations should be. Truth be told, scientists are not the most qualified in this field as science can never answer questions of ontology and origins.

Jester4kicks said:

Our conclusions are limited to the realm of philosophy.

Click to expand...

Philosophy is not limited to specific presuppositions. Science is. You will be unlimited when you allow yourself to think beyond science and enter into the realm of philosophy. You will be a new man, much happier, less grumpy.

Jester4kicks said:

No matter how hard we try, those same conclusions cannot automatically be applied to the natural world of science.

Click to expand...

But they can be applied to the natural world. Science is simply a method of investigating the natural world. It is not the only method and in the area of origins it is not the best.

Jester4kicks said:

Wait... did you just tell me, "science is based on A, B, and C... but you can't verify my claim either way because it would result in circular reasoning"??? You don't see a logical fallacy in that statement?

Click to expand...

Point it out if you see a fallacy. Science is based on philosophical presuppositions that can't be verified scientifically. If you don't believe this tell me why.

Calminian said:

Oy, it's painful sometimes listening to scientists and their followers make statements like this. You simply don't understand the idea of presuppositions. Science is objective when it comes to ideas within the confines of its necessary presuppositions. Science is not objective when it comes to non uniformitarian causation such as miracles and even libertarian human choices. There's actually an article you should read by an atheist who agrees with me and admits to the necessary preclusion of miracles in scientific methodology.

Science and Miracles (1998)
Theodore M. Drange

You'll advance light years if you can grasp onto this.

Click to expand...

I read it. Interesting essay, although the author seemed to ulimately be of the opinion that science cannot explain everything. I do not agree. Perhaps that is where we are truly butting heads here. I believe, given enough time, science can explain anything. Furthermore, while I see the author's perspective regarding the possibility for miracles outside of the bounds of naturalistic science, I cannot agree because I do not believe that anything is outside of science.

Calminian said:

Look it up and you will see your picture.

Click to expand...

Oh.. I see... you're just being cute... or insulting. Good for you.

Calminian said:

You were doing okay up until the last portion. Miracles and non-uniform acts of God (and even humans) make perfect sense. There's nothing illogical about them at all.

Click to expand...

From a naturalistic perspective (my perspective), they are absolutely illogical... as I just stated, and as the author of the essay you cited wrote when referring to miracles and their compatibility with science.

Calminian said:

What do you mean by scientific world?

Click to expand...

Sorry, I suppose I'm referring to the naturalistic world. I refer to the scientific world as the natural world, governed by natural laws and concretes.

Calminian said:

I totally agree.

Click to expand...

Ok, so now I see where you are coming from. You agree with the author that miracles can exist outside of the naturalistic world. I do not.

Calminian said:

Which is what all origins conversations should be. Truth be told, scientists are not the most qualified in this field as science can never answer questions of ontology and origins.

Click to expand...

Why not?

Calminian said:

Philosophy is not limited to specific presuppositions. Science is. You will be unlimited when you allow yourself to think beyond science and enter into the realm of philosophy. You will be a new man, much happier, less grumpy.

Click to expand...

I love philosophy! But I love and respect it for what it is. It's like appreciating a good hypothetical scenario. You can develop it, consider it, weigh the possible implications, and even rework it with the input from others. At the end of the day though, we're all still just biological lifeforms, cruising in a circle through space on a big hunk of rock.

Calminian said:

But they can be applied to the natural world. Science is simply a method of investigating the natural world. It is not the only method and in the area of origins it is not the best.

Click to expand...

Simply stated (obviously), science is THE method for investigating the natural world, while philosophy is the method for considering aspects of existence.

Both serve seperate purposes.

Calminian said:

Point it out if you see a fallacy. Science is based on philosophical presuppositions that can't be verified scientifically. If you don't believe this tell me why.

Click to expand...

Ok, let's explore one of your points; the accuracy of the senses.

I will agree that most scientists (I won't speak for everyone) rely on the accuracy of the senses. However, if someone theorized that the senses were not accurate, they would need to develop an alternative hypothesis, run experiments, analyze the data, and produce some conclusions. Those conclusions would then be reviewed by other scientists who would probably want to recreate the circumstances of the experiment to determine if the results could be replicated. If it turned out that the conclusions were accurate, it would mean a major shift in our understanding of the world around us.

Now, based on what I've read from you, I assume that you are referring to a more philisophical approach. Plato certainly had some interesting ideas about the nature of existence, and our understanding of reality. (For those that are unfamiliar, do some googling for "Plato's cave") Again, while these ideas may suggest that the reality we know is not the "real" reality, science is not based on non-absolutes.

Science is based on empirical evidence, concretes, absolutes, A is A. It is based on that which can be observed and studied. It is based on that which can be duplicated and predicted.

We can spend all day speculating about alternate realities... but in the end, this is the reality we've got to work with.

Calminian said:

Point it out if you see a fallacy. Science is based on philosophical presuppositions that can't be verified scientifically. If you don't believe this tell me why.

Click to expand...

Because it isn't. Science is the aquisition of probabilistic knowledge about a plethora of fields of inquiry (biology, nanotechnology, the quantum world, galaxies, etc, etc, ad infinitum). The probability of a given explanation is determined by the logically derivable scientific method (parsimony, falsifiability, etc).

So what presuppositions does science make?

Wiccan_Child said:

Because it isn't. Science is the aquisition of probabilistic knowledge about a plethora of fields of inquiry (biology, nanotechnology, the quantum world, galaxies, etc, etc, ad infinitum). The probability of a given explanation is determined by the logically derivable scientific method (parsimony, falsifiability, etc).

So what presuppositions does science make?

Click to expand...

Methodological naturalism, methodological uniformitarianism and accuracy of the senses. Let's start with uniformitarianism. Do you believe that miracles, non-uniformitarian acts of God, have occurred in the past? You can define miracles as Hume did, violations of natural laws or additions to natural processes.

Calminian said:

Methodological naturalism, methodological uniformitarianism and accuracy of the senses. Let's start with uniformitarianism. Do you believe that miracles, non-uniformitarian acts of God, have occurred in the past? You can define miracles as Hume did, violations of natural laws or additions to natural processes.

Click to expand...

Doh! Just noticed I completely hijacked this thread. Looks like Jest is a little less trollish now, so perhaps I've accomplished my goal. If any one wants to pursue the presuppositions of science I'll be happy to address it, but in a new thread.

Calminian said:

Methodological naturalism, methodological uniformitarianism and accuracy of the senses. Let's start with uniformitarianism. Do you believe that miracles, non-uniformitarian acts of God, have occurred in the past? You can define miracles as Hume did, violations of natural laws or additions to natural processes.

Click to expand...

Let's start with the fact that uniformitarianism does not exclude miracles and if you think it does, you have an incorrect understanding of uniformitarianism.

no1nose said:

Besides being a math free zone the Theory of Evolution is also an “observer” free.

Click to expand...

Not true. For basic examples of the mathematics of evolution, see Fischer's work on the mechanisms of gender balance as enforced by genetic ratios in the gene pool, and Kimura's work on neutral mutations. Very important works, governed by much the same statistics that pharma companies use to ensure (or not ) that their drugs (which you take, presumably) are safe.

no1nose said:

Relativity is referenced to an “observer”. Changes in time and mass and velocity are “observed” by an observer. In quantum physics the state of a system remains indeterminate until it is “observed”. In atomic systems if the observer looks for a wave a wave is observed, if a particle is “looked” for then a particle and not a wave is observed. Strange but true as they say.

However the Theory of Evolution has no provision for the role of an observer even though the changes that take place are at the atomic level where quantum realities should dominate. When one surveys the natural world and the changes that do occur one must notice the trend toward beauty. If changes in the natural world were completely random then the world around us would have all the beauty of a junk yard. Beauty in the natural world implies that these changes are driven by an observer. The lack of a role for an observer is yet one more piece of evidence against the Theory of Evolution as a valid description of the natural world.

Click to expand...

"Beauty in the natural world implies that these changes are driven by an observer" <- non-sequitur. Please elaborate.

Also, I'm not sure how well you know quantum theory. The links you are trying to draw out (if they are true) are very deep, and you need to have a good grasp of theory and interpretation to make sure you don't go wrong. Here's a diagnostic question:

Suppose Young's double-slit experiment is performed with light and a photographic plate. If both slits are left open, does the wavefunction ever collapse? If so, at what point? How does the situation change if electrons are used? (Bonus: how would the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation using pilot waves differ from the Copenhagen interpretation?)

This is a typical undergrad-level question on the interpretation of quantum theory; I hope you get it right. ^^

Have you ever taken an undergraduate quantum physics course?