Can God be a useful "scientific" hypothesis? Yes

Not even close, because general relativity makes actual empirical predictions. You can’t seem to grasp how those work.


I am not sure why this is relevant. I made it very clear at the start of this topic that I was going to show how "we can test whether a Divine intelligence has and continues to guide evolution, which would make this an improvement of the Modern synthesis rather than a separate explanation. However, this time it will NOT be about trying to prove that God guided evolution or prove God exists at all. "

The criticisms raised on their theory have all been adequately addressed in their 2014 peer-reviewed article that was published in the highly prestigious article. It is highly unlikely that such a high impact journal like Physics of life reviews would publish their article if those objections were fatal or relevant.

For instance, although there are fraudulent articles that can and do get passed peer-review even in highly prestigious journals, Physics of life review has a special feature where additional experts can make up to 5 replies each after an article is published in which the editor informally reads those comments. In this particular case, the editor extended it to 7 replies from various outside sources and experts in which Penrose and Hammeroff adequately addressed all with replies of their own.

I say “adequately” because the editor informally peer-reviews it himself. They also have been bringing their theory in front of skeptics in conferences to be scrutinized even more. I have already gave you the source that verifies all this. In fact, here is a recent review article on their work that does not suggest there is a criticism or objection they failed to adequately address:

"Undoubtedly, the Orch-OR theory co-established by theoretical physicist Penrose and neuroscientist Hameroff is currently the most convincing theory. Even more exciting, with the emergence of new drugs, new research methods, and new quantum technologies, this theory is constantly being enriched and perfected. Especially in the research of anesthesiology (96-100), memory (71), cognition (42,101-103), neural synchrony (104) and vision (49), mounting results and evidence indicated the Orch-OR theory could be self-explanatory and could be invoked to many different conscious backgrounds. More recently, Li et al. found that xenon’s (one kind of anesthetic) nuclear spin could impair its own anesthetic power, which involves a neural quantum process (105).

Thus, the quantum theory of consciousness is increasingly gaining more supporters. With the dedication of these supporters, the quantum theory of consciousness will be gradually completed and will be able to explain the hard problem systematically and comprehensively. As the enigmatic riddle of consciousness has remained intractable, we need more theories and hypotheses to attract enough attention and maintain lively debate. This conflict is the only way for human beings to explore the truth. Since there is no conclusive scientific mechanism of consciousness, as one of the most systemic and convincing theories among various theories of consciousness, the Orch-OR theory deserves our deeper understanding and study."

Do you know of a new peer-reviewed objection of their article after 2019 that they failed to address?

And this is irrelevant to my efforts and my overall case for a number of different reasons, but I will just address the rest of what you said instead.

Again, I am showing how we can test whether or not consciousness impacts mutations NOT prove that it did. So the only thing that matters is whether it is a testable conjecture at least in principle, which is the whole point of this topic.

So I hope you turn your opinion into an actual objection that I can actually respond to next time.

By using Miller-Urey type experiments to test a variety of possible pre-biotic conditions in nature according to my methods outlined.

This is because it would show how a possible condition could have created or developed life before the existence of ANY finite conscious agents. For example, as Kaufman (1995) suggested, “there is no central directing agency” that is necessary for life nor are there irreducibly complex living systems, such as RNA and DNA sequences. Rather, the physico-chemical laws of nature could eventually produce digital information without a mind. So even if there was advanced life before us that created or guided life on earth, this experiment would apply to those conscious agents as well.

I am not following you here. Who are these other ghostly minds that you speak of? LOL

Again, if you don’t have a coherent objection I can dissect and properly respond to, then I have no choice but to take it as a concession on your part and will just move on to the next topic, which will be a common design model.

Did I mention that I am astonished at the patience others have shown? I think I did. I am also astonished at how poorly it is appreciated.


NO, I am very appreciated and never suggested anything less than grateful. FYI, I have been frequently making changes based on those critics and have made an effort to respond to everybody I possibly can. Where did I ever dismiss an objection out of hand?

It’s just as bad when you ignore them or dismiss them with irrelevancies and gibberish.


There is an important lesson you learn when you do actual science that it is very easy to answer the wrong question or different question than the one you thought you were asking. You have to ruthlessly make sure that the experiment tests what you think it tests. I am simply trying to help you explore that more because it seems to me that it could be an issue here. A couple silly examples might be:

Hypothesis: all cars are red
Test: watch airplanes taking of at an airport and record their color

This hypothesis is not falsifiable with this test. The hypothesis is falsifiable, but you have to do the right experiment. That’s one reason falsifiability is not a sufficient condition for “good science”.

Hypothesis: red cars are the best cars
Test: watch they highway and record how many cars of various colors go by

This hypothesis is not falsifiable despite a better test because “best car” has not yet been defined and there is an implicit assumption that the most popular car is the best car and well, that’s not actually the question we’re asking.

Hypothesis: red cars make better time machines
Test: measure the average acceleration of cars of different colors and see if red cars will get to 88 mph faster

The test is easy, but the connection to the hypothesis is dependent on a particular unsubstantiated element. Even if red cars do get to 88 mph faster than any other color, that only helps under a particular version of time machine, which has not yet been verified to be applicable. This hypothesis is not falsifiable, not because the test is bad or not falsifiable, but because the result of the test doesn’t necessarily mean anything for the hypothesis in general.

You are missing the point. It isn’t that Orch-OR has been proven false (fatal objections), it’s that it hasn’t been showed to be correct (there are competing theories and as of yet no experimental way to distinguish between them). It could be right, but it could also be wrong, so if the test of a hypothesis built on top of it comes back false, you don’t know if it is falsifying your hypothesis or the theory that your hypothesis is built on. You could also be right for the wrong reason. This makes it very difficult to falsify your hypothesis.

BTW, I do know how peer-review works, no need to explain it or how science journals work.

That may be, but until we know one way or another we have to be careful building hypothesis on top of it and as I pointed out above, it severely limits the falsifiability of testing of such hypotheses.

That’s not how science works. It’s not a courtroom or a wedding, lack of objection doesn’t make it true.

And I am trying to help you see that you are not yet there, which is my point. I started by trying to understand your hypothesis, in good faith, and then I was trying to help you refine it into something I felt, as a scientist, that was testable. I have no inherent objection to your hypothesis, it would be a fascinating idea if true. But in science you spend a lot of time tearing apart your ideas (often with the help of other scientists who are experts in the field) and the reason is that it is often difficult to make sure you are accounting for all the possibilities and have narrowed the experiment to test the precise question you’re asking.

If the Miller-Urey type experiments show that there are pre-biotic conditions that can produce “lifelike molecules” that only falsifies “there are no pre-biotic conditions that can produce lifelike molecules”, that’s it.

Well, as a Christian I’d say God, but you’re the one positing that minds can mutate DNA. How do we know what minds are around? I’m just pointing out that you are assuming that the experimenter is the only mind around. Since it’s pretty unlikely that humans were around for the beginning of life I’m not sure why you’re trying to test whether the human mind can produce “lifelike molecules”.

  1. “coherent objection”?? that’s a bit of a low blow, considering you asked me to look at it as a scientist :confused:
  2. “concession” is not something for you to assume but for me to offer. I’m not trying to be adversarial here, so “conceding” is an odd word choice. I’m simply doing what I would do with fellow scientists, trying to understand the hypothesis and making sure we put it through the wringer to make sure it’s well formed and testable.
  3. don’t wait on me, I’m done. If you don’t want help, I’m not going to waste my time.

Just the person I want to talk to. Could you state his hypothesis?

1 Like

As near as I can tell, it’s basically that consciousness is a quantum phenomenon (involving neurons and qubits) and somehow interacts with DNA through proton-tunneling to cause mutations. Mind-guided mutations then could be responsible for the direction of evolution.

1 Like

Thanks. I had no idea. Presumably this is only God’s mind that does that sort of thing, right? People don’t go around mutating persimmons or flounders, right? And the persimmons and flounders don’t mutate themselves either, again right?

Speak for yourself, Miles Standish.

1 Like

Well, that’s a bit of what I’m confused about. It seems like he’s testing human minds (because Orch-OR depends on neurons, which I’m assuming God doesn’t have) and extending that to an “intelligent designer” .

It suggests a whole new slant on the X-Men.

Ready to pull that plug now? :laughing:

1 Like

35 posts were split to a new topic: DNA duplication, mutation, and information

Yes, you are right. “Coherent” and “concession” were a poor choice of words looking back at it and I am not trying to be confrontational either. I was just trying to get you to understand that we really need your expertise more than anybody on this forum because of your background in quantum physics, chemistry, and theism. We simply can’t move forward with any sort of confidence or at all without your say on the matter. However, your response before the last one you made just seem like you were not fully invested and just wanted to end this topic ASAP. This may have prompted me to use those poor choices of words without being fully aware it.

Therefore, I really wish you would have gave me the benefit of the doubt like I do for every other user on here rather than assume the worst, but that’s ok. My apologies, nonetheless.

Yes , but when I make the claim “God guides all life on earth”, it is not based on an assumption upon another assumption. It is an inference based on previous experiments and observations that I argued suggest a Divine intelligence guided evolution. For instance, there are 5 known explanations for DNA/RNA. An alien designer, an unconscious quantum computer, natural law, time-traveling humans, and a personal necessary being, which would be God.

It can’t be humans for obvious reasons, but it can’t be the known laws of physics and chemistry either because they only produce analog information while digital information has only been known to come from minds;

It can’t be a quantum computer because RNA experiments suggest it requires a conscious observer to obtain positive results; it can’t be an alien designer because the genome and genetic text is mathematically identical to human language, which suggests that there is a relation between us and this agent rather than something mysterious. This leaves us with God as being the best possible explanation.

Thus, we are not making an assumption like time machines but an inference based on things that can give us a more accurate conclusion. Moreover, the proposed methods to test the hypothesis are valid ,for the most part, because they are derived from quantum physics experiments (i.e. observer effect).

I think that the confusion here might be coming from Roger Penrose’s additional postulation of a Universal consciousness, but this involves the creation and development of the entire Universe or non-biological settings. My hypothesis and methods to test it strictly apply to biology or biochemistry.

Thus, I am not relying all that much on Penrose’s additional postulation and methods to be correct or proven correct for my hypothesis to work. Instead, I am relying on the Orch-OR theory’s support of human consciousness AND those experiments or observations I just mentioned before. This theory happens to be very well established and used by other scientists for their work with no competing theories that I know of. In fact, even if there were competing theories, we have an experiment that would distinguish between them.

We are never going to know one way or another about any theory. Almost everything in science is tentative and careful. So I am not quite sure where you are getting at here. Maybe this will help…

Can you tell me which standard of proof you are operating under when you suggest that the Orch-Or theory of consciousness is not established enough to make accurate conclusions (not talking about Penrose’s objective collaspe). There are 4 known types:

Consensus (scientific)
Absolute certainty
Persuasion (I.e. until I’m convinced)
Beyond a reasonable doubt

Would you say it is the fourth one, which entails that a proposition must have:

(A) Enough evidence that supports the actual claim being made or evidence proportional to the claim

(B) There can’t be other explanations that explain the evidence equally as well or better.

(C) There can’t be unexplained conflicting evidence, unaddressed objections, or untested predictions that are designed to falsify it.

If you feel there is at least potential (especially after this response), then this would be groundbreaking. This is because, as you know, very few theists believe it’s even remotely possible that God can be a useful scientific hypothesis. I’ve talked to many Christian scientists and many of them would suggests that there is no way to ever get there for a number of different reasons.

Since I am not an expert, my goal on this forum was to present my model and have it be torn apart and improved on enough for Christian scientists to take notice and they can take it to the next level for me.

Ohhhh… my mistake. I thought you were going somewhere else with this objection.

As I explained to @Michael_Okoko , the experimental procedure I pointed out only applies and works for the past, but let me elaborate.

The rationale behind my approach is based upon a principle regarding causation from past events, which was popularized by Charles Lyell who also influenced Charles Darwin and Stephen Meyer, of course. “Lyell argued that when scientists seek to explain events in the past, they should not invoke unknown or exotic causes, for the effects of which we do not know. Instead, they should cite causes that are known from our uniform experience to have the power to produce the effect in question. Historical scientists should cite ‘causes now in operation’ or presently acting causes. This was the idea behind his uniformitarian principle and the dictum, ‘The present is the key to the past’.

For instance, pre-biotic experiments are attempting to simulate natural environments that potentially occurred in the past in order to find out the causal mechanism that led to life as we know it. As you alluded, inserting a human observer into the experiment is not enough to establish that a Divine intelligence was the cause because we are contingent beings.

This is why another experiment showing an unguided process ,in accordance with the second experiment that shows a guided process, is required in order to show there could not be any conscious life before simple life emerged. If the unguided experiment produces negative results, it would support the “necessary” attribute of this intelligent designer. This is because “necessity” is an intrinsic attribute of God’s nature, which means showing that God is not necessary in explaining a particular feature in nature is the same thing as falsifying the God hypothesis.

Therefore, we cannot apply the same reasoning to present day events because humans exist and ,thus, could have been responsible for the results equally as well. So I agree with you that we cannot exclude other minds and ,as @Michael_Okoko pointed, it leads into logical absurdities to apply this reasoning to the present. This is why I proposed other ways to test whether God is still guiding evolution in the present.

Actually, experiments have shown that human cognition operates in a quantum mechanical manner, which would suggest that God does have something akin to neurons. My assessment might be mistaken though:

“We point out that quantum mechanical principles, such as superposition and interference, are at the origin of specific effects in cognition related to concept combinations…
…We investigate the implications of our quantum modeling scheme for the structure of human thought, and show the presence of a two-layer structure consisting of a classical logical layer and a quantum conceptual layer.”

Quantum structure in cognition - ScienceDirect

This is another reason why I think the experimental methods I proposed to test the hypothesis can be considered valid in making the right conclusion.

I don’t see that suggestion in there.

You’re not trying to test your hypothesis. Testing involves trying to falsify it, not confirm it. You continue to maintain a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method.

May I suggest smaller, more modest hypotheses as a better way to learn?


You mean the suggestion that God has something akin to neurons. As I said before, my assessment could be mistaken.

Yes, I have done this already by creating this topic. Again, I made it very clear at the start of this topic that I was going to show how we can test whether a Divine intelligence has and continues to guide evolution, which would make this an improvement of the Modern synthesis rather than a separate explanation. However, this time it will NOT be about trying to prove that God guided evolution or prove God exists at all.

Mine does as well.

Not small enough.

No, you’re not understanding the empirical requirement. Empirical means what you directly observe, not how you or anyone else might interpret it.

The idea is that all of the interpretation is baked into the hypothesis in advance. You’re not doing that at all.


NO, as I explained to @Jordan, it is based on observations within DNA. You have not made any objections on my inference yet regarding the matter.

16 posts were split to a new topic: Is DNA digital information?