Actually, you are wrong. Think about how science works. When you don't
have any answers how are you going to get some? We are still looking
for gravitons. It is obvious that we should not have started there. So
what did happen? Scientists observed things and came up with things
that they could do to learn something about nature. Why isn't that an
option for intelligent design? Why keep working on the untestable junk
and getting nowhere?
What you will also find if you attempt to do any science is that the
most direct means of finding something out is to look into the issue,
come up with something that you might have a unique twist on and use
that insight to develop tests to see if you could be correct. Even if
you are wrong you often find something out that leads to different
experiments and new knowledge.
For centuries intelligent design was the default explanation for Western
science. It amounted to nothing. No intelligent design alternatives
are left standing today. It was actually an impediment to constructive
advance in our scientific knowledge. The default did get some people to
try to catalog creation and this allowed the collection of data so that
hypotheses could be formed and tested. One of the main things that kept
scientists going was to see if they could figure out how the designer
might have done something. Otherwise intelligent design is a science
stopper. You claim to have the answer, but it really isn't an answer.
So the default explanation in science today is that we just don't know,
but if we are clever enough we might figure out a way to discover new
knowledge. So if you can come up with a story, you better be able to
test it and demonstrate that it might have some basis in reality.
> Start with consciousness. We experience life as a ghost in a machine. Run with that, and you arrive at interactive spiritual dualism. Spiritual dualism models better match consciousness studies than any materialist models. Every materialist model has refuting test cases, while my dualist model has none.
Why start there? Why not start somewhere simpler and where you can
actually do something with the tools that you have available? How have
you determined that spiritual dualism models better are a better match
than something else?
> Move on to NDEs, OBEs, and psi. All have been well documented. Psi is shown with multiple statistically significant results in over a half dozen forms. the effect is weak, so interaction is weak. NDEs and OBEs have behavioral consistencies. Assume they proive accurate data, and work from there. Souls exist, and are separable from the body.
So what? In science we know that we do not know everything. If you
think that you can demonstrate something to a level where you can get a
lot of people to agree that, that something exists in nature, that would
be great. How do you get from psi experiments to claims that souls
exist and are separate from the body? Do you see your problem? With
souls, you are dealing with an issue that you have about no chance of
demonstrating anything, so you aren't going to make much progress. Real
science would keep souls in mind and an effort would be made to think of
new things that could be tried, but an effort would be made to see if
there was an end around. Why are souls needed in your model? Start
broadening your approach and see if you can answer questions that could
lead you to a better understanding of what a soul is. In order to do
this you may have to reach back all the way to what you got out of your
religious beliefs and start testing them if that is all you could do.
> Add in data from past life and between life hypnotic regressions. Look at it for consistency between researchers.
And what do you get that you can test and confirm? Why hasn't this
testing been done?
> Add in data from channeling. These three sources, OBEs, hypnotic regression, and channeling, produce wildly variant descriptions. This is not consistent with any of the world's major religions, in particuler with the monotheisms which would have simple mono-polar spirit realms. It IS consistent with the spiritual universe being diverse and spirit's info very incomplete -- a shamanistic model of the beyond.
Again, why weren't these conclusions tested and confirmed if such
correlations exist?
In science we know that we do not know everything and we know that we
are likely to be incorrect in our inferences, so testing your inferences
is one of the most important parts of science.
This might help you think about how science works and why ID never did.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb05.html
Have you played with jigsaw puzzles? How many times are you wrong in
your hypothesis testing? How many times do you expect to be wrong in
your scientific inferences based on incomplete knowledge? Testing is
essential and if you can't test your junk it is just junk. The best
that you could hope for is that it is inspirational junk, and that
someone else may come up with something better. What inspiration have
IDiots gotten out of IC? Why isn't Behe trying to test IC. He claimed
that he had a test for it, but admitted that he had never done the
testing around 10 years ago. He probably still hasn't done any testing,
and what has IC amounted to in around two decades?
> With a fragmentary spirit realm, a long-term guided evolution theory is not plausibly sustainable, a la the RCC version of evolution. The most intervention that is plausible is very occasional. This is a weak version of your "tweaker" hypothesis. the only obvious candidates for tweaking are the introduction of the first protocell, and the diversification of multicelled life with the Cambrian Explosion. The rest of life looks to be naturalistically evolved, and maybe the Cambrian Explosion was too.
My guess is that you are farther out on a limb than most IDiots want to
go. You can try to convince Kalk and Glenn to collaborate with you so
that you can improve your story and make it more convincing.
When you make claims like this there are testable claims that could be
made to support what you say. Those are the claims that you should
concentrate on and demonstrate that they can be confirmed. You could
establish when the Cambrian explosion happened and how much time you
have to tweek the system. Using the genome data you will soon be able
to determine how much tweeking went on before the Cambrian explosion.
Some researchers have already started this with gene families and
demonstrating things like what happened in the common ancestor of all
multicellular animals before the Cambrian explosion could occur.
You should be able to understand what should have been done, so why was
it never done? Right now Intelligent design creationism is just a scam
that the creationists are running on themselves. It will not get any
better until the IDiots decide that they need something better. The sad
thing is that most of them already know that they do not want to know
the answers that they can already come up with. For good or bad, that
is about the only reason that the scam exists today instead of rational
inquiry.
Ron Okimoto