Why do people deny evolution?

This sounds ludicrous (my emphasis): LM wrote: "a talisman that repels all threats to orthodox evolutionary theory.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. (Arthur C. Clarke)

was decided against in the Dover trial

For some, merely uttering the words "natural selection" is presented as though it were some kind of magical incantation

Even though writers like Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer are motivated at least in part by their religious beliefs, the empirical arguments they offer against the likelihood that the origin of life and its evolutionary history can be fully explained by physics and chemistry are of great interest in themselves.

I believe the defenders of intelligent design deserve our gratitude for challenging a scientific world view that owes some of the passion displayed by its adherents precisely to the fact that it is thought to liberate us from religion. That world view is ripe for displacement....

Nagel is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy, and has held fellowships from the Guggenheim Foundation, the National Science Foundation, and the National Endowment for the Humanities.[2] In 2008, he was awarded a Rolf Schock Prize for his work in philosophy,[3] the Balzan prize,[4] and the honorary degree of Doctor of Letters from the University of Oxford.[5]

In his Mind and Cosmos (2012), Nagel argues against a materialist view of the emergence of life and consciousness, writing that the standard neo-Darwinian view flies in the face of common sense.[8] He argues that the principles that account for the emergence of life may be teleological, rather than materialist or mechanistic.[9]

Nagel is an atheist and not a proponent of intelligent design (ID). He writes in Mind and Cosmos that he lacks the sensus divinitatis that would allow him see the world in terms of divine purpose. He disagrees with both ID defenders and their opponents, who argue that the only naturalistic alternative to ID is the current reductionist neo-Darwinian model.[10] He has argued that ID should not be rejected as non-scientific. He wrote in 2008 that "ID is very different from creation science," and that the debate about ID "is clearly a scientific disagreement, not a disagreement between science and something else."[11]

Nagel does not accept Meyer's conclusions but he endorsed Meyer's approach, and argued in Mind and Cosmos that Meyer and other ID proponents, David Berlinski and Michael Behe, "do not deserve the scorn with which they are commonly met."[9]

Have you ever seen a magic act ? It is the unknown that makes it magic . Unless of course you really think people can disappear...

Again, do you know of any physicists who make the claim that observed phenomena are the result of magic?

We're not talking about performers staging illusions for an audience, are we?

Quote:

Again, do you know of any physicists who make the claim that observed phenomena are the result of magic?

Again, I answer, yes, most of them .

Quote:

We're not talking about performers staging illusions for an audience, are we?

We're not ? Large Hadron Collider ? Can you duplicate THAT magic trick ? Illusionists get paid for you not knowing how they do it . Do you know how to duplicate the tricks of Physicists or Magicians ? Physicists get paid for trying to explain their magic with gooblyspeak...seen any other dimensions ? Heard the Big Bang ? Are you able to comprehend the size of the Universe ? Had a bath with quantum foam lately ?

Let's see your evidence.

The many-worlds interpretation is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts the objective reality of the universal wavefunction and denies the actuality of wavefunction collapse. Many-worlds implies that all possible alternate histories and futures are real, each representing an actual "world" (or "universe"). In lay terms, the hypothesis states there is a very large—perhaps infinite[2]—number of universes, and everything that could possibly have happened in our past, but did not, has occurred in the past of some other universe or universes. The theory is also referred to as MWI, the relative state formulation, the Everett interpretation, the theory of the universal wavefunction, many-universes interpretation, or just many-worlds.