The Argument Clinic

[Tim]

@Meerkat_SK5

No, I am posting research here.

No you are not!

What you are proposing to be taught is neither:

• Mike Gene’s The Design Matrix book; nor

• Rana’s inexpert and revisionist essay on Richard Owen’s work; nor

• Hammeroff’s ORCH-OR Theory; nor

• Todd Elder’s claims about Baraminology …

… but rather your own idiosyncratic and frequently grossly misrepresentative synthesis of all of the above, and who knows what else, that you call your “Universal Designer Theory”.

@Meerkat_SK5

Mike gene, Fuz Rana, Stuart Hammeroff and Todd Elder have already done their due diligence on this subject for me.

“Mike gene, Fuz Rana, … and Todd Elder” are engaged in Creationist apologetics, NOT scientific research. None of their claims have been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Therefore their claims do not count as “due diligence”, even if you characterised them accurately. But you haven’t even done that – you make the ludicrously false claim that “Fuz Rana and Mike Gene have crafted tested models”, when neither of your cited sources contain any evidence that their “models” (I would rather call them mere speculations) have been “tested”.

What part of:

@Tim

The “Christian theistic scientists” whose attention you are seeking are unlikely to be impressed by further such self-published claims.

… and …

@Tim

And the first question they would ask would be “have these claims been published in the peer-reviewed literature and accepted by the scientific consensus?”

… and …

@Tim

Inexpert apologists simply don’t have any influence on what is taught in science.

… did you fail to understand?

As for “Stuart Hammeroff”, I have already pointed out that your understanding of qunatum theory, based as it is on the Youtube videos of an inexpert apologist, appears to be seriously deficient. And the one physicist who has also addressed this subject on this forum has also denegrated your understanding. Thus, until you answer the following questions, any citation by you of Hammeroff, ORCH-OR or Qunatum Theory is a complete non-starter:

@Tim

I therefore have three questions for you:

1. What is your formal background in physics?
2. What is your formal background in calculus?
3. What books/textbooks on quantum physics, written by actual quantum physicists have you read? (As opposed to Youtube videos by apologists.)

Until you answer these questions, I refuse to discuss any matter related to Quantum Physics with you.

Based on this, your previous statement diminishes to:

[Nobody has] already done their due diligence on this subject for me.

@Meerkat_SK5

I have already explained why that standard of proof is not reliable in this situation.

Yes, but nobody accepted this ‘explanation’.

What makes you think that science educators will be any more receptive to it?

Having both rejected this explanation and your “theory”, what makes you think we would be interested in “help[ing you] get access to those people through this forum”?

You seem to have the Pollyannaish belief that:

1. our wholsesale rejection of both your theory, and close to every claim you have made underlying it, doesn’t matter, but

2. for some unexplained reason, in spite of that wholesale rejection, we can be persuaded to promote your theory to “Christian theistic scientists”, science educators, etc.

I find the juxtaposition of these two blatantly contradictory views to be absurd to the point of being delusional.