Universal Common Designer theory [UPDATED and REVISED]

[Tim]

There seems to be an unfortunate pattern in @Meerkat_SK5’s comments on this thread:

To me:

@Meerkat_SK5

I think your lack of expertise in quantum mind theory is showing here.

@Meerkat_SK5

If your lack of expertise in these areas compel you to reject what I am saying without a detailed proper assessment, then we have reached an impasse in our discussion.

To @Dan_Eastwood:

@Meerkat_SK5

However, I can’t accept these type of objections from them if they don’t have an expertise in the relevant fields in question, such as your objection that Divine action cannot be tested.

To the thread in general:

@Meerkat_SK5

Or they are making personal objections that are not aligned with their level of expertise.

To @CrisprCAS9:

@Meerkat_SK5

And your misunderstanding of, and general unfamiliarity with, quantum physics is not my problem either.

1. I would note that the last comment was directed at a comment of @CrisprCAS9’s that made no mention of quantum physics. This comment was therefore simply gratuitous.

2. It appears to be the opinion of many (all?), including the one physicist, on this thread that @Meerkat_SK5 themselves demonstrates no expertise in quantum physics.

3. @Meerkat_SK5 appears to be basing their ‘understanding’ (if it could be called that) of quantum physics of the Youtube apologetics of somebody who @CrisprCAS9 suggested they “wouldn’t trust to properly interpret a stop sign” – an evaluation that I’d support given the garbled mess I encountered here. (Does ‘Inspiring Philosophy’ actually have a formal background in philosophy? It seems hard to credit.)

4. Given that @Meerkat_SK5 called Fazale Rana a “a well-established expert” (in the context of a comment on the informational similarity between human languages and DNA), cites Hugh Ross on biology, etc, etc, I would suggest that we have no evidence that they even know how to recognise expertise.

I would therefore request that @Meerkat_SK5 cease and desist this repeated, and deeply flawed, credentialism.

I would note that I am not claiming any scientific expertise of my own. I have been basing my own criticism simply on reading comprehension – comparing the claims made to the text and context of the cited sources. If even a reasonably sophisticated layman can see through the claims, then these claims are deeply flawed. Sufficiently flawed that the only practical way forward would be to abandon them and start from scratch.