In a comment within the Misusing Science thread Keiths made the following brief remark:
If immaterial souls exist "” particularly souls of the kind that most people envisage "” then there are testable empirical consequences.
The logic of the statement indicates that if we could observe what are reasonably inferred as consequences of an immaterial soul then we would have cause to suspect a soul exists and that the lack of such expected consequences would be evidence against the existence of a soul. I'm not going to explore what those consequences might be or whether the linkage is appropriate but instead want to focus on another implication inherent in the statement.
The belief, shared by ID critics other than Keiths, is an acknowledgement that observable physical consequences can be used as evidence to support a claim, in favor of or opposed to, an immaterial concept. That is noteworthy because intelligence is an immaterial concept about which physical evidence has been linked in such disciplines as forensic science and archeology. ID critics have been quick to point out that a known designer is identifiable in such disciplines and contrast this with ID's unidentified designer as a form of criticism.
Yet look closely at the soul claim again. The souls in question belong to designed organisms namely, humans. The designer is nowhere in evidence even assuming physical consequences consistent with the existence of an immaterial soul. So, in principle, a link between physical consequences and an immaterial entity is established even in the absence of an identified designer. Some neuro-science enthusiasts are inadvertently making claims relevant to ID and a designer centric approach.