OTOH, the usual scientific account of human origins includes no miracles whatsoever. Apparently, this is a big problem because @swamidass has undertaken to create his own account, which contains one, single solitary miracle. Well, I’ve done him many miracles better.
If miracles are bad, then the boring old no-miracle account should have been perfectly acceptable. No?
As is the case with my hypothesis.
Hmm, I was thinking that the GAE hypothesis is essentially a theological one, but supported by the scientific claim to establish that GAE would be invisible to science. So I would maybe clarify to say that, in my understanding, GAE is not a scientific hypothesis, although it does interact with science by establishing that science cannot rule it out. Would that be correct?
We’re not talking about miracles performed by Jesus when he was on earth though. We’re talking about miracles continuously occurring for no clear reason. These miracles are also not attested to in Scripture. So it’s hard to compare this with Jesus’ miracles. So why do you think more such “miracles” is better for your hypothesis?
But GAE is not a new scientific account of human origins, why do you think that? It interacts with the usual scientific account, but it’s not replacing it from a scientific perspective. It’s adding another layer of understanding on top of it.
Mine does the same. Mine is just not encumbered by having to conform to some Biblical narrative.
My hypothesis has nothing to do with Jesus or the Bible or anything like that. So I fail to see why you think they are of any relevance whatsoever.
I believe I have answered that question several times. Perhaps you could ask @swamidass why he thinks his account is better than the standard one with one fewer miracle.
That is true. So like I said, it’s an interesting hypothesis, I’ve enjoyed thinking about it. But I’m not sure what else to do with it. It also, as far as I can see, has nothing to do with GAE. Your hypothesis doesn’t have to conform to a Biblical narrative, GAE is trying to do so. I’m not sure what other connections could be made.
OK! Well, then you can’t just offer the example of Jesus as being “greater” because He performed more miracles. (Btw, even YECs don’t think a scenario is better because it has more miracles.) The GAE is a favorable hypothesis according to Christian epistemological criteria. Your scenario is favorable because of what criteria?
You have not provided a coherent answer for why you think more miracles are better, even within your own epistemology. So once again: why do you think more miracles are better?
@swamidass is publishing a book about his hypothesis. Do you think I should do the same? Why or why not?
You can certainly publish a book about your hypothesis if you want. Might make some good money and street cred among some of the skeptical or anti-theistic community, I bet. Why are you asking Christians for permission?
I reject the position that the value of a scientific idea should be based on the degree to which it adheres to a particular religious dogma. So I see no reason that GAE should be of greater interest or value than my hypothesis.
Sure. If you reject Christian epistemological criteria, then what you have to fall back on are naturalistic epistemological criteria, which says “more miracles → worse hypothesis”. So, your scenario fails miserably. Unless you have some other set of epistemological criteria which we have yet to hear about…
My hypothesis is intended to be religiously neutral. That is another decided advantage it has over GAE.
What does religiously neutral even mean, given that the hypothesis violates Christian epistemological criteria? I’m not sure Jews, Muslims, or Hindus would embrace it either in their frameworks.
Why is being religiously neutral an advantage?
Well, if we’re continuing with the idea of this being serious hypothesis, then I would think you would need to do a lot more work in putting together other lines of evidence and connecting it to some sort of broader body of knowledge (philosophical, theological, historical, etc.). Your hypothesis, on it’s own, is interesting but I imagine at this point that it would be hard to develop it to the level of a book. Just my opinion.
I think you’re right. @swamidass’s book is targeted at religious fundamentalists. They are not likely to find much of interest in my idea, and neither are the more discerning people who make up the rest of the population. I guess I’ll have to keep my day job.
I don’t think that community would have much interest in this idea at all. They tend to be interested in ideas that actually have positive evidence or argument behind them, unlike my hypothesis or @swamidass’s GAE.
OK then. For the reasons I have already explained, Christians would also not be interested in your hypothesis either. So, I guess there’s not a viable market for your book then, unfortunately. 
And yet Michael Behe sells books full of ideas that are no less silly, and which are actually scientifically false. Oh well, can’t be bitter