Some of us are interested in the science that is the basis of any such Angelic disputes. (Disputes amongst dead Englishmen, like Dawkins and"¦ whoever.)

If IDers (like Mike Gene) didn't have scientifically contentless criticism to constantly attend to they might actually contribute some freakin' science to the discussion. And thereby change its whole complexion.

The Bible, though, teaches that, yes, you have free will, as do we all. But it also teaches that there will come a time when ALL sentient creatures will, whether they want to or not, bow the knee to God.

And after Plantinga went through all that trouble to explain how not even an omnipotent God can both grant and not grant free will.

Does this mean Saint Augustine had it right about predestination after all?

Do I have free will?

Depends on whom you ask, I imagine. The Bible, though, teaches that, yes, you have free will, as do we all. But it also teaches that there will come a time when ALL sentient creatures will, whether they want to or not, bow the knee to God.

It'll never work, and is a dangerous game to play if you're representing less than ~2% of the population.

Dawkins is not from the USA. The country in Europe where he comes from has a significantly higher proportion of atheists than 2% - as does Europe as a whole. So, maybe not so dangerous a game after all…

Mike: If I say that X is evidence for ID and the critic says that X is not evidence for ID, what shall I do?

Generate NEW evidence using your notion of ID to make predictions.

We can't put X into an instrument that will objectively determine if X is really evidence.

The scientific method is basically such an instrument, but it's more about identifying ideas, not evidence. If your notion of ID can make predictions that distinguish it from MET, you can test those predictions instead of wasting your time categorizing people.

How would categorizing people on your blog help to establish X as evidence for ID, Mike?

Dangerous is as dangerous does, TP. Chinchillas are known to bite"¦

LOL Good one.

I assure you I don't bite. My comments? Maybe. But not me.

Proposal? We don't need no steenking proposal!"¦ §;o)

I've no full-fledged theory you could take apart,

Then pick apart mine. The introduction was in the front-loading open thread.

I will update it and either post it on this blog or give you a link to it.

Joy also wrote…

What I strongly suspect is that physicists are correct - there are more than 3+1 dimensions in the totality of reality, and some or all of them are causal of phenomena in our sub-reality.

Maybe I didn't make it clear enough. Anyone who understands and accepts even the basics of the current mathematical models is convinced there are more than 3+1 dimensions to reality. Even old-school scientists believe it, they just require experimental data before they will accept it.

In short, I don't think there is any significant challenge to your assumption that there are more than 3+1 dimensions.

But my field of interest is primarily physics. My background too, though there's a significant biological aspect included. I participate in the consciousness quest because that is where my interest was directed nearly 15 years ago, when I witnessed/experienced a genuine miracle of consciousness. One that more than a dozen scientific "hired guns" testified to in a court of law, btw. I figure that if we can all admit that miracles happen (even if we don't agree on the details), then maybe we should try to agree that there's 'more' going on than any of us is fully aware of.

Worse, I think it's pretty much all "natural," even if we don't understand and can't really hope to understand what it *is* or what it *means*.

Like I said, I think you need to read my ID proposal. Many have pointed out how it resembles Sheldrake's "morphic resonance". However, I think my ID proposal is slightly more modest than that. I argue (until it is explained otherwise) that this modest ID proposal is sufficient to explain the design evidence presented by ID proponents.

I always thought Churchillians were cute little mammals with thick fur, whose pelts were worth a lot of money.

LOL

Is that why Joy thinks being a Churchillian is "dangerous"