# Which approach is best suited to end Origins debate?

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/which-approach-is-best-suited-to-end-origins-debate/15803>\
**Category:** Conversation\
**Tags:** Science, Education, Society\
**Created:** [February 4, 2023, 11:01pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/which-approach-is-best-suited-to-end-origins-debate/15803 "2023-02-04T23:01:07Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Meerkat\_SK5](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/meerkat_sk5/32/11938_2.png) [@Meerkat\_SK5](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Meerkat_SK5)\
**Post date:** [February 4, 2023, 11:01pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/which-approach-is-best-suited-to-end-origins-debate/15803/1 "2023-02-04T23:01:07Z")

</div>

Continuing the discussion from [Common Design Theory, Revisited](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/common-design-theory-revisited/15734):

> [@Common Design Theory, Revisited](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/common-design-theory-revisited/15734/15):
>
> > [@Common Design Theory, Revisited](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/common-design-theory-revisited/15734/12):
> >
> > I thought the main purpose of this forum was to find a way to end the origins debate.
> 
> You are wrong. The main purpose is to promote [the genealogical Adam and Eve](http://peacefulscience.org/genealogical-adam-eve), which is thought by some to be able to end or at least mitigate the “origins debate”. It has the advantage that it’s compatible with the historical scientific evidence, which your notions are not.
> 
> You have been told over and over that your theory has no value, explains nothing, and is not even coherent. You woj’t believe it coming from any non-Christian. It’s my hope that some Christian here will be blunt and tell you the same thing. Perhaps then you would believe it and stop wasting your time and, apparently, your money on this pointless excercise.

As I mentioned before, the resistance behind Darwin’s theory of evolution comes from it being taught in public high school science classes where most parents are forced to send their kids.

Joshua’s model seems to only alleviate the problem through philosophical and theological arguments. Unless he plans on getting his idea taught in specifically high school science classes, I don’t see how his proposal can even make modest gains in ending this culture war.

In contrast, the Discovery institute’s (DI) attempt at making God’s involvement a _scientific_ argument seems to be a much more promising and powerful approach in ending this debate and much more.

This is why I went out my way to provide a comprehensive theory of ID to help compensate for the insufficiencies in their ID model.

That being said, I was not planning on publishing this article directly. Instead, my plan was to make sure this paper has all the necessary elements in it to be a viable template for more qualified researchers to further develop this theory and model.

Right now, this paper is still considered a rough draft and will always be one until more competent Christian researchers take ownership of the content of this paper and make it robust and ready to submit to a theology, philosophy, or scientific journal themselves. They would be able to make the most out of it.

When that day comes, I will continue to improve on it , _if need be_, until the theory is a fully viable template for researchers to take it the next level.

So topic of discussion here is…

Which approach is best suited to resolve the origins debate and why:

_The philosophical/theology argument that @swamidass 's model proposes._

OR

_The scientific argument for God’s involvement that DI and others are attempting to offer._

Before we start, I feel like I need to clear up some confusion about what the peer-reviewers said about my article in a previous thread:

1. The experts were evaluating my paper based on the scope of a target journal. [Peaceful Science](http://peacefulscience.org/) was the target journal I told them I wanted to submit.

2. The experts _never_ said my paper was ready to be submitted. Instead, they said the paper _appeared_ to be “nearing submission readiness”. This is not uncommon for peer-reviewers to say this.

3. The experts said in the quote that I _adequately_ addressed a set of important objections made by PS users (i.e. no major reasons to reject it). They never said the paper had no other issues or was robust.

After rereading my paper, I realize that the formatting of the article was more subpar than I intended. What I was trying to do is make it flow better by moving some long winded arguments into the appendix. But, this ended up back firing. I also saw some instances where I could have provided more evidence or examples and clarification.

So I went back and revised the format along with some other major improvements. This time I have decided to provide an outline of what and where you can expect to find certain topics of interests. This means that everyone can just shop for ideas you want to read further into without reading the entire article:

**Outline of what to expect** :

Capabilities of the designer [D]

Nature of the designer [F] [P]

Model of design mechanism [I] [G]

Definition of consciousness [C]

Definition of created kinds [H]

Methods for determining created kinds [K]

Conflicting evidence and falsifying designs [O]

Testable ID predictions [J] [O] [G]

How common designer only implies common design [G]

Confirmed predictions [I] [E] [O]

Phylogenetics model for common design [J]

Constraints on designer’s abilities [O] [P]

Origin of life and species model [I]

Future research [N] [O]

**Outline of where to find it:**

[A] Abstract

[B] Introduction

[C] Quantum mind theory

[D] Universal proto-consciousness field

[E] Empirical support for model

[F] Universal common designer theory

[G] Universal common design theory

[H] Definitions

[I] Origin of life and species model

[J] Origin of species predictions

[K] Methods

[L] Results

[M] Discussion

[N] Future research

[O] Difficulties on theory

[P] Appendix

[Is There Evidence for a Universal Common Designer? - Peaceful Science](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-evidence-for-a-universal-common-designer/15735)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Puck\_Mendelssohn](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/puck_mendelssohn/32/11849_2.png) [@Puck\_Mendelssohn](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Puck_Mendelssohn)\
**Post date:** [February 5, 2023, 3:09am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/which-approach-is-best-suited-to-end-origins-debate/15803/2 "2023-02-05T03:09:10Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> Which approach is best suited to resolve the origins debate…

The “origins debate” does not exist in the sense of being a dispute between arguable positions within science. So the “scientific argument” option you offer up is a nonstarter. It does exist as a culture-war phenomenon, which is what @swamidass’s efforts are directed to addressing.

So the choice you offer is between (a) his proposal, which faces the culture-war nature of the problem straight-on and makes a good faith effort to address it, and (b) the dishonesty of Intelligent Design Creationism. Not a huge amount to debate there; even if one took the most pessimistic view of @swamidass’s efforts, there’d still be only one possible choice.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![CrisprCAS9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/crisprcas9/32/9145_2.png) [@CrisprCAS9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/CrisprCAS9)\
**Post date:** [February 5, 2023, 3:09am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/which-approach-is-best-suited-to-end-origins-debate/15803/3 "2023-02-05T03:09:11Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> the resistance behind the evolution theory comes from it being taught in public high school science

No, it comes from it being evidently true.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> In contrast, the Discovery institute’s (DI) _scientific_ argument for God’s involvement

The DI has no scientific arguments.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> [Peaceful Science](http://peacefulscience.org/) was the target journal I told them I wanted to submit.

PS is not a journal.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> This is not uncommon for peer-reviewers to say this.

I can’t imagine what you’d base that on, since you’ve never _actually_ submitted anything through peer-review.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> So I went back and revised the format along with some other major improvements.

You should take some time to consider that your project is not salvageable. Because it isn’t.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [February 5, 2023, 3:09am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/which-approach-is-best-suited-to-end-origins-debate/15803/4 "2023-02-05T03:09:13Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> _The scientific argument for God’s involvement that DI and others are attempting to offer._

You begin with a false premise, and so just end up spinning your wheels. There is no such scientific argument. The DI is not attempting a scientific argument, though they may be said to be attempting to simulate one.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\
**Post date:** [February 5, 2023, 3:07pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/which-approach-is-best-suited-to-end-origins-debate/15803/5 "2023-02-05T15:07:14Z")

</div>

@Meerkat_SK5 ,  
Crispy said it already, but I’d like to emphasize …

> [@CrisprCAS9](#):
>
> > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
> >
> > the resistance behind the evolution theory comes from it being taught in public high school science
> 
> No, it comes from it being evidently true.

The science works. It’s as simple as that.

> [@CrisprCAS9](#):
>
> > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
> >
> > In contrast, the Discovery institute’s (DI) _scientific_ argument for God’s involvement
> 
> The DI has no scientific arguments.

AND **“_scientific_ argument for God’s involvement”** is self contradictory. I think recognition of this fact would not end the origins debate outright, but it would frame the discussion appropriately.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [February 5, 2023, 8:44pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/which-approach-is-best-suited-to-end-origins-debate/15803/6 "2023-02-05T20:44:02Z")

</div>

> [@Dan\_Eastwood](#):
>
> AND **“_scientific_ argument for God’s involvement”** is self contradictory.

I disagree. If a god turned up and started poofing living things out of thin air, while explaining why he had only created things that looked like they had evolved, we would have very clear scientific evidence of his involvement.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Meerkat\_SK5](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/meerkat_sk5/32/11938_2.png) [@Meerkat\_SK5](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Meerkat_SK5)\
**Post date:** [February 5, 2023, 9:49pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/which-approach-is-best-suited-to-end-origins-debate/15803/7 "2023-02-05T21:49:11Z")

</div>

> [@CrisprCAS9](#):
>
> The DI has no scientific arguments.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> You begin with a false premise, and so just end up spinning your wheels. There is no such scientific argument. The DI is not attempting a scientific argument, though they may be said to be attempting to simulate one.

> [@Dan\_Eastwood](#):
>
> AND **“_scientific_ argument for God’s involvement”** is self contradictory. I think recognition of this fact would not end the origins debate outright, but it would frame the discussion appropriately.

> [@Puck\_Mendelssohn](#):
>
> The “origins debate” does not exist in the sense of being a dispute between arguable positions within science. So the “scientific argument” option you offer up is a nonstarter. It does exist as a culture-war phenomenon, which is what @swamidass’s efforts are directed to addressing.

You guys did not address the actual topic at hand. I never said it was a scientific debate that is argued within the scientific community. We are talking about the means in which we try to end the debate. Here, let me put it to you guys this way…

Right now, both @swamidass and the Discovery’s institute (DI) models are considered philosophical in nature. However, DI is _trying_ to turn it into a scientific model so it can become a scientific debate within the community, which would potentially end or mitigate the origin’s debate.

Unless Joshua plans on turning his model into a scientific proposition, the attempts and methods of DI seems to be a better way at ending the debate for the reasons I laid out in the intro of this thread. This is why I went out of my way to make it into a scientific proposition and much more. And now, we have a comprehensive scientific model of ID with a lot of potential.

If you guys still feel Joshua’s methods or model is a better way _even without making it into a scientific proposition_, How and why is this the case?

> [@CrisprCAS9](#):
>
> I can’t imagine what you’d base that on, since you’ve never _actually_ submitted anything through peer-review.

That is definitely not true. I sent my ID work through pre-submission AND post-submission peer-review before I came on here. Also, you forget that this forum is like another form of peer-review that my ID work went through. So we do have a legit scientific theory and model of ID now, which is ready to potentially end this debate. Of course, it is not perfect, but there are no major flaws nor is it lacking anything that would make it less than a _scientific_ theory.

> [@CrisprCAS9](#):
>
> You should take some time to consider that your project is not salvageable. Because it isn’t.

How so? prove it. What makes you say that? I need you to adequately answer this or else I won’t be able to properly consider that my project is not salvageable.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\
**Post date:** [February 5, 2023, 9:56pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/which-approach-is-best-suited-to-end-origins-debate/15803/8 "2023-02-05T21:56:12Z")

</div>

Material evidence for the immaterial is also self-contradictory. 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\
**Post date:** [February 5, 2023, 10:05pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/which-approach-is-best-suited-to-end-origins-debate/15803/9 "2023-02-05T22:05:21Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> You guys did not address the actual topic at hand.

Nope, we didn’t. We’ve addressed those topics multiple times before and you didn’t pay attention. If you had paid attention, then you would understand why you do not have a scientific proposition. Enough.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![CrisprCAS9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/crisprcas9/32/9145_2.png) [@CrisprCAS9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/CrisprCAS9)\
**Post date:** [February 5, 2023, 10:06pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/which-approach-is-best-suited-to-end-origins-debate/15803/10 "2023-02-05T22:06:09Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> I sent my ID work through pre-submission AND post-submission peer-review

I understand that you _think_ that was peer-review. You are mistaken.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> Also, you forget that this forum is like another form of peer-review that my ID work went through.

No, it isn’t. Peer review has a particular meaning in science, and this ain’t it.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> So we do have a legit scientific theory and model of ID now

No, you don’t. You’ve produced nothing coherent, and you refuse to accept that criticism.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> What makes you say that?

The absence of a coherent presentation and the lack of credible evidential basis.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [February 5, 2023, 10:06pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/which-approach-is-best-suited-to-end-origins-debate/15803/11 "2023-02-05T22:06:21Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> In contrast, the Discovery institute’s (DI) attempt at making God’s involvement a _scientific_ argument seems to be a much more promising and powerful approach in ending this debate and much more.

The only way for this “debate” to end is for those proposing that “intelligent design” has any merit at all to realize and admit they are wrong. As long as they refuse to do so, this “debate” (which is really a situation in which people who know and accept the truth try to persuade those in denial of the truth) will continue.

You can do your part by accepting the feedback you have received at this forum and give up your inept attempt at a theory.

There. At least you can say you were never told this.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [February 5, 2023, 10:06pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/which-approach-is-best-suited-to-end-origins-debate/15803/12 "2023-02-05T22:06:41Z")

</div>

> [@Dan\_Eastwood](#):
>
> Material evidence for the immaterial is also self-contradictory.

If there was good evidence for God, theists would not be reduced to using lame excuses like this.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Puck\_Mendelssohn](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/puck_mendelssohn/32/11849_2.png) [@Puck\_Mendelssohn](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Puck_Mendelssohn)\
**Post date:** [February 5, 2023, 10:06pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/which-approach-is-best-suited-to-end-origins-debate/15803/13 "2023-02-05T22:06:59Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> However, DI is _trying_ to turn it into a scientific model so it can become a scientific debate within the community, which would potentially end or mitigate the origin’s debate.
> 
> Unless Joshua plans on turning his model into a scientific proposition, the attempts and methods of DI seems to be a better way at ending the debate for the reasons I laid out in the intro of this thread.

But it’s not. The DI isn’t actually trying to do science. It’s just trying to do culture war. And there is no possibility, as matters stand, for it becoming anything more. You will not end the culture war debate; ignorance, stupidity and creationism will always be with us.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Meerkat\_SK5](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/meerkat_sk5/32/11938_2.png) [@Meerkat\_SK5](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Meerkat_SK5)\
**Post date:** [February 6, 2023, 12:50am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/which-approach-is-best-suited-to-end-origins-debate/15803/14 "2023-02-06T00:50:45Z")

</div>

> [@Dan\_Eastwood](#):
>
> Nope, we didn’t. We’ve addressed those topics multiple times before and you didn’t pay attention. If you had paid attention, then you would understand why you do not have a scientific proposition. Enough.

You are talking about YOUR objection involving the logical impossibility to ever make the God hypothesis a scientific one. It is not that I am not paying attention to this objection. It’s that you won’t accept that your objection is primarily attacking a strawman version of my particular ID model.

For instance, Quantum mind or universal proto-consciousness theory does not advocate for dualism or for an additional supernatural force/substance, which would operate outside the rules of science. Instead, it advocates for consciousness being an essential ingredient of physical laws that is not yet fully understood by science.

You indirectly acknowledged this when you sent me this:

> > [@On another topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/15230/1):
> >
> > You will want to read this. I’m to sleepy to explain 😀
> > 
> > [Quantum theory of consciousness put in doubt by underground experiment – Physics World](https://physicsworld.com/a/quantum-theory-of-consciousness-put-in-doubt-by-underground-experiment/)
> 
> Diósi’s model is more complete, and testable, and early tests do not support either Penrose or Diósi.

In contrast, DI’s intelligent design model is dualistic/supernatural in nature and thus inherently unscientific.

> [@CrisprCAS9](#):
>
> I understand that you _think_ that was peer-review. You are mistaken.

They never said this service constituted _actual_ scientific peer-review, but it is a close simulation of it.

> [@CrisprCAS9](#):
>
> No, it isn’t. Peer review has a particular meaning in science, and this ain’t it.

Like what?

> [@CrisprCAS9](#):
>
> No, you don’t. You’ve produced nothing coherent, and you refuse to accept that criticism.

> [@CrisprCAS9](#):
>
> The absence of a coherent presentation and the lack of credible evidential basis.

I went back and revised the format along with some other major improvements right before I made this thread. So this is not an issue now. Of course, it is still not perfect, but there are no major flaws nor is it lacking anything that would make it less than a _scientific_ theory anymore.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> The only way for this “debate” to end is for those proposing that “intelligent design” has any merit at all to realize and admit they are wrong. As long as they refuse to do so, this “debate” (which is really a situation in which people who know and accept the truth try to persuade those in denial of the truth) will continue.
> 
> You can do your part by accepting the feedback you have received at this forum and give up your inept attempt at a theory.
> 
> There. At least you can say you were never told this.

I am just going to reiterate what I just told @Dan_Eastwood and hope you properly address the _current_ construction of the model I presented on this forum.

It is not that I am _no longer_ accepting your guy’s feedback. It’s that you won’t accept that your objections are primarily attacking a strawman version of my particular ID model.

For instance, DI’s intelligent design model is dualistic/supernatural in nature and thus inherently unscientific.

In contrast, Quantum mind or universal proto-consciousness theory does not advocate for dualism or for an additional supernatural force/substance, which would operate outside the rules of science. Instead, it advocates for consciousness being an essential ingredient of physical laws that is not yet fully understood by science.

Sadly, you guys refuse to read those sources and accept the science on these quantum theories that I use as a basis for my ID model.

> [@Puck\_Mendelssohn](#):
>
> But it’s not. The DI isn’t actually trying to do science. It’s just trying to do culture war.

No, not quite. DI is trying to do science in order to end the culture war. They are not trying to create culture war. To suggest otherwise would not make any sense.

> [@Puck\_Mendelssohn](#):
>
> And there is no possibility, as matters stand, for it becoming anything more. You will not end the culture war debate; ignorance, stupidity and creationism will always be with us.

I don’t think this is true anymore. We have a comprehensive scientific theory of ID now that has potential.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![CrisprCAS9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/crisprcas9/32/9145_2.png) [@CrisprCAS9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/CrisprCAS9)\
**Post date:** [February 6, 2023, 3:26pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/which-approach-is-best-suited-to-end-origins-debate/15803/15 "2023-02-06T15:26:29Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> Like what?

Peer-review is a process of vetting a completed manuscript for publication, by impartial referees who are only interested in the quality of science. You don’t have a completed manuscript. Or anything close to it. It’s not even that you haven’t gone to the right palace. Peer-review at this stage **isn’t even possible**.

And the service you used isn’t impartial, they have a vested interest in helping you, because you are paying them.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> So this is not an issue now.

I guarantee it still is.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> nor is it lacking anything that would make it less than a _scientific_ theory anymore.

There is no possible way this is true. Instead, it is a demonstration you don’t understand what a scientific theory **is** in the first place. What you have is barely conjecture. It is not a theory in the scientific sense.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> Sadly, you guys refuse to read those sources and accept the science on these quantum theories that I use as a basis for my ID model.

I have. Those papers are bad science, and not taken seriously by relevant fields. And the fact that you’re basing your conjecture on bad science is a part of the problem.

The fact that you can’t recognize it is bad science is another part of the problem.

The fact that you ignore the repeated notes that you’re basing your conjecture on bad science while pretending **we** are the ones ignoring **you** , is _another_ part of the problem.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [February 6, 2023, 3:27pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/which-approach-is-best-suited-to-end-origins-debate/15803/16 "2023-02-06T15:27:53Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> We have a comprehensive scientific theory of ID now that has potential.

Let me be blunt here, **nobody** on this forum appears to agree with you on this point.

Further, I would suggest that nobody on this forum seems to think that your “theory” has _even the slightest hope_ to “end Origins debate”.

Everybody here seems rather to be of the opinion that your “theory” is _unsalvageable_, and that it would be better if you stopped wasting your time and money pursuing it.

So my question here is **why do you keep coming back to inform us of your theory’s (dubious) ‘progress’?**

This is particularly so given that you reject our advice.

If this advice is so bad (“strawman”, etc, etc) **then WHY do you keep coming back to seek it?**

You seem to be simply wasting our time as well as yours.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [February 6, 2023, 3:32pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/which-approach-is-best-suited-to-end-origins-debate/15803/17 "2023-02-06T15:32:27Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> Sadly, you guys refuse to read those sources and accept the science on these quantum theories that I use as a basis for my ID model.

I can’t speak for others, but I personally refuse to read your sources unless you explicitly state that you have read them yourself. You have on many occasions been caught citing ‘sources’ that you have not in fact read. Your use of Casey Luskin’s misquote and your misrepresentations of Yockey, for example.

No-one need waste their time reading something that might not be your _actual_ source.

> [@](#):
>
> > [@Puck\_Mendelssohn](#):
> >
> > But it’s not. The DI isn’t actually trying to do science. It’s just trying to do culture war.
> 
> No, not quite. DI is trying to do science in order to end the culture war. They are not trying to create culture war. To suggest otherwise would not make sense.

The DI is _not_ trying to do science. The DI _is_ fighting a culture war.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Meerkat\_SK5](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/meerkat_sk5/32/11938_2.png) [@Meerkat\_SK5](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Meerkat_SK5)\
**Post date:** [February 7, 2023, 1:26am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/which-approach-is-best-suited-to-end-origins-debate/15803/18 "2023-02-07T01:26:55Z")

</div>

> [@CrisprCAS9](#):
>
> Peer-review is a process of vetting a completed manuscript for publication, by impartial referees who are only interested in the quality of science. You don’t have a completed manuscript. Or anything close to it. It’s not even that you haven’t gone to the right palace. Peer-review at this stage **isn’t even possible**.

Again, the experts said in the quote that I _adequately_ addressed a set of important objections made by PS users (i.e. no major reasons to reject it). They never said the paper had no other issues or was robust.

Moreover, the experts _never_ said my paper was ready to be submitted or had a completed manuscript. Instead, they said the paper _appeared_ to be “nearing submission readiness”.

> [@CrisprCAS9](#):
>
> And the service you used isn’t impartial, they have a vested interest in helping you, because you are paying them.

Does this sound like a biased assessment of my paper from partial reviewers:

> The peer reviewer comments have not been completely addressed and the manuscript is not submission ready yet. Please note my comments:
> 
> The literature mentioned by Reviewer 4 have not been cited.
> 
> Comments by reviewer 3 about new predictions have not been addressed.
> 
> Recent evolutionary theories have not been spoken about – for example, evolution model based on information theory.
> 
> Evolution happens in a number of ways, including horizontal gene transfer between unrelated species, epigenetic inheritance of genes, convergent evolution, etc. The authors have only touched up on horizontal gene transfer briefly. Other factors need further elucidation.

To bring context, I asked them whether I was able to address the objections of peer-reviewers from an ID paper I sent awhile ago to a secular scientific journal. As you can see, they were honest enough to tell me that I did not address their objections. After this, I changed my approach and model to overcome the objections that were made on this forum and from that journal.

So you along with @Dan_Eastwood @Faizal_Ali @Tim and @John_Harshman are all wrong to say that I am not accepting your feedback or paying attention. From the very beginning, I have been taking what you have said very seriously. In fact, I ended up throwing away a number of scientific arguments from various sources based on your guys objections.

> [@CrisprCAS9](#):
>
> > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
> >
> > So this is not an issue now.
> 
> I guarantee it still is.

Then, put your money where your mouth is and show me. I have been waiting for this but you guys have stopped critiquing because you know there are no more major flaws with it.

> [@CrisprCAS9](#):
>
> There is no possible way this is true. Instead, it is a demonstration you don’t understand what a scientific theory **is** in the first place. What you have is barely conjecture. It is not a theory in the scientific sense.

My particular ID model is primarily conjecture, correct. But, I was referring to Richard Owen’s universal common design/archetype theory and quantum mind theory, which is very well-supported or tested.

> [@CrisprCAS9](#):
>
> I have. Those papers are bad science, and not taken seriously by relevant fields. And the fact that you’re basing your conjecture on bad science is a part of the problem.

In one instance, you are telling me that my paper did not go through the proper peer-review channels because it did not come from impartial referees who are only interested in the quality of science.

Then, in another instance, you claim that my paper is based on bad science even though those quantum theories have gone through the normal peer-review process that you just described, dozens and dozens of times.

You CAN"T have it both ways.

> [@Tim](#):
>
> So my question here is **why do you keep coming back to inform us of your theory’s (dubious) ‘progress’?**

Because you guys keep telling me that I am not taking your objections seriously and I am trying to show you that I have.

> [@Roy](#):
>
> I can’t speak for others, but I personally refuse to read your sources unless you explicitly state that you have read them yourself. You have on many occasions been caught citing ‘sources’ that you have not in fact read. Your use of Casey Luskin’s misquote and your misrepresentations of Yockey, for example.

Not when it comes to the articles involving those quantum theories, which I did read.

> [@Roy](#):
>
> The DI is _not_ trying to do science. The DI _is_ fighting a culture war.

I agree, let me rephrase it. DI is trying to dress up their philosophy/theology to look like science or frame their argument as a scientific endeavor in order to end the culture war.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [February 7, 2023, 1:33am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/which-approach-is-best-suited-to-end-origins-debate/15803/19 "2023-02-07T01:33:17Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> In contrast, Quantum mind or universal proto-consciousness theory does not advocate for dualism or for an additional supernatural force/substance, which would operate outside the rules of science. Instead, it advocates for consciousness being an essential ingredient of physical laws that is not yet fully understood by science.
> 
> Sadly, you guys refuse to read those sources and accept the science on these quantum theories that I use as a basis for my ID model.

Let me be again blunt with you @Meerkat_SK5 – **there is no** [“universal proto-consciousness theory”](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22universal+proto-consciousness+theory%22&btnG=). In fact there is virtually no mention of [“universal proto-consciousness”](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22universal+proto-consciousness%22&btnG=) in the scientific literature – and the majority of it is from Gregory L. Matloff, who is [not a quantum physicist](http://www.gregmatloff.com/biography.html), and uses the term _speculatively_, e.g.:

> To begin my research effort in preparation for the Stapledon symposium, it was first necessary to consider some means that a universal proto-consciousness field could interact with a star.[[1]](http://gregmatloff.com/Edge%20Science%20Matloff-ES29.pdf)

Looking back to see _where_ you got the phrase “universal proto-consciousness” from, I came across [this piece](https://www.lionsroar.com/the-beginners-mind-of-scientist-sir-roger-penrose/) you cited [here](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/universal-common-designer-theory-updated-and-revised/14182/100). I would point out that this piece is under the heading of “Buddhist Wisdom for Our Time” – so its viewpoint is **religious not scientific**.

The reason we generally don’t bother to read your sources is:

1. You are frequently caught out (as @Roy noted) not having read them yourself.

2. Your sources _very frequently_ don’t support the claim you cite them for.

3. Your sources are _very frequently_ of poor quality (like the one I referenced above).

4. You cite _too many_ sources to have a reasonable expectation that anybody would read them all.

I therefore would suggest that your garbled **quantum woo** has **no “science”** to it, and **no chance** of getting published in any respectable publication. You yourself have repeatedly demonstrated that you have **no understanding** of quantum physics, so I see **no point** in discussing anything to do with this field further with you.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [February 7, 2023, 3:13am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/which-approach-is-best-suited-to-end-origins-debate/15803/20 "2023-02-07T03:13:26Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> > [@Tim](#):
> >
> > So my question here is **why do you keep coming back to inform us of your theory’s (dubious) ‘progress’?**
> 
> Because you guys keep telling me that I am not taking your objections seriously and I am trying to show you that I have.

Would you please **STOP** quoting me out of context!

What I in fact said was:

> [@Tim](#):
>
> > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
> >
> > We have a comprehensive scientific theory of ID now that has potential.
> 
> Let me be blunt here, **nobody** on this forum appears to agree with you on this point.
> 
> Further, I would suggest that nobody on this forum seems to think that your “theory” has _even the slightest hope_ to “end Origins debate”.
> 
> Everybody here seems rather to be of the opinion that your “theory” is _unsalvageable_, and that it would be better if you stopped wasting your time and money pursuing it.
> 
> So my question here is **why do you keep coming back to inform us of your theory’s (dubious) ‘progress’?**
> 
> This is particularly so given that you reject our advice.
> 
> If this advice is so bad (“strawman”, etc, etc) **then WHY do you keep coming back to seek it?**
> 
> You seem to be simply wasting our time as well as yours.

You **have not** taken seriously:

- The ubiquitous viewpoint that you _don’t_ “have a comprehensive scientific theory of ID now that has potential”

- That nobody on this forum seems to think that your “theory” has _even the slightest hope_ to “end Origins debate”.

- That everybody on this forum seems to think your ‘theory’ is unsalvageable.

- That nobody on this forum seems to think that your garbled quantum woo has any serious scientific foundation.

- That we have repeatedly pointed out that your conclusions are pervasively _non sequitors_.

And on this very thread you seem to spend far more time quibbling about criticism **than listening to it!**

So again I ask:

**Why do you keep coming back to inform us of your theory’s (dubious) ‘progress’?**

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/which-approach-is-best-suited-to-end-origins-debate/15803.md?page=2)