The best scientific method (Bayesian form of H-D)

I went into science 40 years ago, to get ideas for living that were closer to the truth. I was taught that science had three purposes:1. More accurately estimate the plausibility of ideas.
2. Protect us from personal bias.
3. Deepen understanding of ideas.I was also taught that the best science followed three sets of rules:1. Hypothetico-deductive method.
2. Strong inference.
3. Bayesian evaluation of posterior plausibility.Finally, I was taught that "normal" science was frequently:1. A game, played by liars supported by persons in denial, who wanted to buy lies from "experts" to justify their denial.
2. A disinformation program, generated by enemies of the culture, to suppress useful truths.
3. A con, perpetuating lies that were profitable to those conducting the con.This was the sixties, you understand. Kuhn's research was before us, as well as the amazing progress of statistical research, and the pressures of the cold war. Did Diogenes ever find an honest man, we wondered? Who could we trust? Why?I spent the next forty years testing and refining these lessons, and present them here because, so far, I have found them trustworthy. That is, the science I did based on them has been extraordinarily successful. I agree with the architect of the Matrix: denial is the most predictable of human responses. We are all in trouble, and only adherence to some tried and true methodology will protect us from our self-delusion.By these criteria, of course, almost no scientific studies of evolution are good science. It is, indeed, rare for someone defending the theory of evolution to even show any understanding or use of the three standards of excellence in science that I was taught. Scientific creationists are not much better.

The theory of evolution is that biologic diversity has originated from natural selection operating on random mutations. To apply strong inference to the validation of this theory, we need a comparable alternative, which I will call "evolition." That is, Darwin began by comparing natural selection to artificial selection, the one operating without the intervention of willful choices by a "higher" being, the other operating largely under such choices. So with random mutation, which would be compared with genetic engineering. Thus, biologic diversity in dogs would be generated by evolition, and diversity in wood warblers by evolution. Unless, of course, it can be shown that some other "higher" being, with free will and power, has artificially selected and/or genetically engineered, wood warbler diversity.Thus, the two terms catch an essential difference: -volution the idea that it is merely out of the life cycle, -volition out of willful choices.In strong inference, one takes the two theories, comparably expressed, and generates predictions from them, looking for predictions that contradict each other. Clearly, the discovery of lineages confirms both theories, as long as we consider that artificial selection may be a part of "creationism." A decent evolutionary scientist would of course admit that, since natural selection is such an essential part of their theory. The creationist, normally, is coming from a credit angle. What's important to the creationist, who normally has this relationship with the supposed creator, is that this God person get credit for what is created. The evolutionary ecologist doesn't think much about this, just as the creation ecologist doesn't think much about artificial selection as a means God used in creation.So, if lineages don't discriminate between the two theories, don't really validate natural selection, what predictions ought we test? Now, one fascinating bit of science history concerns the Bible Codes paper in Statistical Science, by Witztum and his colleagues. Put aside for a moment how valid that study is, and consider how evolutionary ecologists, who were real scientists, ought to have viewed it. The study took the hypothesis that there really was some really smart person behind the Genesis account, wherein we find the origin of the idea that biologic diversity was somehow willfully created, was produced by some sort of evolition, not evolution. It generated some really very implausible predictions from this hypothesis (I'm getting Bayesian here), and then tested them. As a control, they set up a "natural selection, random mutation" alternative, scrambling the letters of Genesis at random, and looking for the same willfully, powerfully inserted "codes." They didn't set it all up explicitly (more's the pity), but in essence they set up a strong inference test of the two theories. If a willful, powerful being really is making the statements found in Genesis about the origin of biologic diversity, exclusive natural selection/random mutation cannot be true. It at least must share the field with evolition.Well, Witztum's paper circulated for nearly twenty years before anyone tried to discredit it. To date, I have yet to hear an evolutionary scientist comment on the implications of the study on their science. Apparently, they just didn't recognize what had happened to their theory by its publication. Those attempting to discredit it, who may loosely be called evolutionary scientists, have behaved horribly in dealing with the study. Witztum, at one point asked what data they would have to see to be convinced. They responded that nothing would convince them. They were not strong inference scientists. They published their criticism without inviting Witztum's review, censored his effort to reply, and mostly attacked a "straw man" a newspaper reporter popularizing Witztum's study. Witztum's main control was a "natural selection, random mutation" comparison, where the letters in Genesis were randomly mixed up. In this control, they failed to find the statistically rare events observed in Genesis itself, events predicted to be willfully placed there by this really smart, powerful person. Person, we should say now, since the probability that they are out there attending to this discussion is now fairly high.But, evolutionary biologists do not seem to be interested, as they ought to be, in the objective, Bayesian, plausibility of the God as creator idea. They thus neglect all three of the standards I was taught made one a true scientist. Creationists, in my view, are actually ethically worse, although they often are more epistemologically self-conscious in their scientific methodology. That is, they strain harder to do science right. But they lack common sense. Their book, the Bible, clearly states that this God/creator person is available for interviews on any subject. The few creation scientists who have responded to this fact have gotten from such interviews rather sensible perspectives (they were told by God, for example, that the earth was created some 15 billion years ago--they were told this, according to Satinover's report, twice, 2000 years ago, and 1000 years ago.) But most creation scientists ignore this obvious source of information.

Edge,You ask: "Interesting. What did you study? Was it related to evolution or creationism in any way?"My overriding research interest was happiness, and why humans behave as they do. My tactic was to first understand territorial and dominance behavior in birds, especially as these affected habitat distribution. But, in the process, I wanted to test what I was being taught was effective scientific epistemology, and wanted as well to get understanding that would help us conserve bird populations. You can see some of where this all went, by a search under my name and topics such as ideal free distribution, populations in a seasonal environment, optimal balance between size and number of offspring, and food chain dynamics.The main findings that satisfied my personal quest were:1. Happiness is an emotional state related to "habitat selection" (sensu latu), by which an organism knows that it is in a habitat that is part of the niche to which it is adapted. The way to be happy, therefore, is to determine the niche to which one is "adapted," and then to choose to reside in that niche.2. The scientific methodologies I was taught work really well, judging from the continued interest in the discoveries I made using them.3. The ecologies or niches of almost all species are influenced by top-down (predatory, parasitic) factors, and by bottom-up (resources, environmental structure) factors, in variable proportions.4. All species that humans know of live in ecosystems with other species that are more powerful than they are, have sensory systems that detect environmental information that they cannot sense, and are more intelligent than they are. To suppose that this is not true of humans as well is a priori foolish. (the law of succession persuaded me of this. If virus's have bacteria, and bacteria protozoa, protozoa micro-invertebrates, and so on up the scale of organic complexity, power, and intelligence, why should we stop at humans?)5. Between black holes, dark matter, dark energy, vacuum energy, and a host of "spiritual" research efforts, it is plausible that our ecosystem is inhabited by other species that are as inconspicuous to us as, say, we, or robins, are to earthworms. Certainly to assume otherwise because we lack experience based on our limited sensory capacity, is epistemologically foolish. Worms that don't "believe in" robins because they have never tasted or touched one, don't survive as well as those who have behaviors that make sure that untouched, untasted robins are avoided. Thus, earthworms extend their setae when pinched, and humans pray in foxholes when bombs are dropping around them.6. Really well adapted (which would include really smart) parasites influence the minds of their hosts, so that those hosts behave in ways profitable to the parasites. The parasite that causes hydrophobia in dogs, for example, makes the infected dog behave in ways that result in transmission of the rabies infection. If we consider demons as spiritual parasites, we can expect them to try to make us behave in ways that work to their agenda, not ours.7. Humans at war with one another often attack each other's livestock. Whereas in peaceful conditions, humans tend to be symbiotic with their livestock, in war one group of humans will simply exploit or destroy another's livestock. We ought therefore to expect that spiritual beings at war with one another might do the same. Humans domesticate lower biological beings, and it is claimed and widely believed that spiritual beings domesticate humans ("The Lord is my shepherd...."). There are also groups of spiritual beings at war with one another, or so many have supposed. Humans are supposed to be pawns in this war, which is a not unreasonable possibility, given what we know of the ecology and behavior of humans. If we do it, why not them? It is of course possible that humans have abilities and ways that spiritual beings do not have (virus's do things that bacteria don't do), but robins not only taste and touch, they see and hear. Anyway, the hypothesis that humans are pawns in a war between spiritual beings is moderately plausible, a priori, and certainly worthy of testing.8. I did a lot of research on adaptation and niches, related to behavior and to morphology. I am quite pleased with my efforts to show that variability in morphology is adapted to what I call ecotypic selection, as opposed to archetypic selection. That food generalist species squeezed by competitors are adapted to be less morphologically variable than food specialist species in competitor free settings. At first, I attributed this to evolution. But, as I came to consider the hypothesis that this "God" person was husbanding the world's ecosystems, artifically selecting and genetically engineering most of the various "natural" species out there, I began to look for ways to see which hypothesis was more plausible.9. So, I and some others began some prayer experiments on various species. For one, we chose (late 70's) the California Condor, that none of us had on our life-lists, and which had very dim prospects for continued survival. We got remarkable responses to our prayers, and felt that God very well could be artifically selecting and otherwise intervening in the course of "natural" selection. Of course, so is man, but this God person has made it clear that, if men are handy, He will use them. I also took on the problem of the Dickcissel, my favorite bird species, which had been declining in population for as long as BBS data were available. That was a more expensive prayer experiment, requiring me to give up my tenured university position in order to reverse this trend. (The Condor experiment only took corporate fasting). But it worked. The species stopped declining in population, the problems causing it to decline were reversed, and it all took place within a year or two of my resignation.I have tried to climb onto Newton's shoulders, to see further than he saw, and if possible to share in the glory of excellent science. I am hoping that my contributions to food chain dynamics will earn for me an honored place in the history of science, and argue that that theory is in fact the central theory of all ecology, or questions pertaining to the distribution and abundance of species and ecosystems. Questions pertaining to form and function of organic biology, which heretofore have been answered in an evolutionary context, I am now convinced, will require a different answer which includes a spiritual ecological or historical component.Newton led the way, by taking on the Bible problem, spending, so I hear, more of his research energy there than on gravity. I have tried to follow him in this, looking into the Bible scientifically, to understand how the unseen, spiritual world has influenced our human experience.As things now stand, in my scientific experience, the theory of evolution is implausible insofar as it stands on natural selection and random mutation. It served us well, however, by addressing the process of creation, confirming the idea that a great deal, even most of creation took place through selection on lineages, over a longish period of time. But, it is time for the paradigm to shift. We need to give God His due credit.

Abshalom,Quite right, thank you for correcting me so gently.All my books are boxed in storage, so I'm a bit handicapped, but right, Satinover's report (in his book on the Bible Codes) does refer to the Kabbalistic studies of the name of God in the beginning of Genesis. And does refer to the age of the universe, the creation at the beginning.Reading Satinover's book, I got the impression that he saw much truth and integrity in the Kabbalistic efforts. It is my own impression, however, that sees those efforts as intentionally spiritually directed, requiring insights from outside the scriptures to properly interpret the scriptures. I don't actually read much creationist literature any more, but when I last did, I tried to look closely for any sign that the author was engaged in listening prayer as they proceeded. And, when I ask God to tell me what happened, I hear Him telling me that the Kabbalists asked, and He told them what to do to get those figures. Derek Prince, more recently, reported that He asked God what happened at creation. He didn't get any numbers, but was told that the "In the beginning..." referred to a long, long time ago, and that the generation of stars, earth, life, etc proceeded over all that time. He, however, also heard that, in the war with Satan, there was a lot of devastation ("formless and void" really means "laid waste and destroyed"), which was rather quickly (seven days?)and recently repaired to the state that it had developed over the eons. So, both concepts are "true." There was an old earth creation, and a young earth restoration, the latter more conspicuously miraculous. I found Prince's report after I had asked God to tell me what happened. When first I asked, He told me that I wasn't prepared (ok, "smart enough") to understand the answer, but that I should stick around and He would explain it all to me. That was 30 years ago.That the recent, miraculous restoration was restored to look "old," makes sense to me. It's what I pray for, when, say I asked for someone with skin cancer to be healed. I want the healed skin to be the right age for the body it is covering.

Abshalom,We are advised by New Testament writers that prophesy is always incomplete, and subject to judgment. It's a lot like science. We report what we believe God is saying, but there is a need for replication, confirmation, and deepened understanding. The OT requirements on prophecy, to be infallible at least about the future, seem to have been modified by the availability of grace for error.It sounds as if I can learn a lot from your more thorough examination of this, and that I will enjoy.Stephen

Holmes,You ask:
1) Why is the Xian God the default God, and the Bible the default religious text for understanding the world? There are other Gods and other texts. How is it anything but arbitrary choice to choose that one cult over others?Praying is a lot like going before a judge as a lawyer; it helps to be recognized and authorized. When I came to this study, even though I was a practising atheist, I had been raised Christian, and had behind me many of the elements needed to effectively pray. So, that's the direction I went in. In incorporating strong inference into this science, as you suggest, bringing in the prayers of other Gods, I say Amen. But I would need colleagues working on the companion hypotheses. I did pray a bit to the Gods behind the I Ching, and behind horoscopes, with disastrous results personally. But, that may have been because I was already in a relationship with Jehovah, and He was manifesting His jealous nature.We're dealing, so the hypothesis goes, with real persons here.2) How does your praying prove that it was the Xian God which answered your prayers to help the species you talked about? We'll leave aside the fact that you admit humans actually solved the issue, and assume you are right that their was a connection between prayer and something being corrected.Science proves nothing, only confirms predictions that makes ideas more plausible. I sincerely hope that someone who prays out of another religious foundation will challenge me to a test of powers. We should have this data at hand. Do people get better faster when Hindus pray?

Andya Primanda,Let us do this together. Let's agree to fast together one day, and make Jehovah this promise: If He will do a conspicuous miracle to save these rhinos, you and I will commit ourselves to any life or mind changes needed to make us more effective at ruling over the rhinos so that they manifest their Creator's glory. At the least, we will learn to point out the rhinos to others as an honor to God, who we affirm, made them. And, we will be called "to believe in Him who He sent." so that we can become powerful in prayer to fix whatever troubles rhinos and other living things.OK?Stephen

Abshalom,I very much look forward to hearing your insights and questions, about the Kabbalistic Rabbi's and their musings. Bear in mind how, when I first learned of this stuff, I thought to integrate it into my thinking. What I wanted to know was, what have other people heard when they somehow, at some level, inquired of God what He did. What intriqued me was the delicate interplay between scripture and hearing: leaning too heavily one way or the other seemed to produce problems. But, fill me in on Ramban's problematic view of the universe. I'll be watching to see how he brought scripture into it.Note, however, as a strict H-D scientist, I do get shaken up a lot. For example, the Michaelson-Morley experiment, in H-D terms, confirms the earth as the center of the universe hypothesis. Ether is out there, (and, in dark matter or vacuum energy, we are wondering again) but the earth is not moving. Everything else is. Incredible, but there it is.Then there is the slowing of the speed of light stuff, which is controversial, but I do not believe, settled yet. It is possible that the curve which best fits the data is hyperbolic, with a y-axis asymptote at, ta-da, 4000 BC. That is, at 4000 BC, the speed of light was infinite. What that does to time, I don't know.The point is, we have lots of wiggle-room in what we know about cosmology. I wouldn't dare argue that any of this stuff is true; only that it further encourages humility and openess, and a detailed study of applied epistemology.But, spiritual hearing has to contend with the devil, who according to some trustworthy authorities, has, has to be fought with the life and blood of Yeshua. A Hebrew prophet in NT times, in this view, is going to bring a really mixed message. Yeshua's prophets may not be any better, actually, but at least they have a counsel to correct them. Remember, the devil talks too, and masquerades as an angel or messenger of God. I mean, to do this right, you have to have the mentality of a CIA agent, dealing with agents, doubles, drones, and whatever.I'll tackle directly your other questions tomorrow, replying to the other post.Stephen

Hey, Quetzal,Here's an attaboy for a great post!Stephen

Andya,I had to stop being a Christian to learn to pray effectively. The theory of answered prayer is based on the idea that this Jehovah person has lots of power, that He will use in response to our requests, if we please Him, and keep His commandments. For example, He once sent a message, that the prayers of those who turn away from the hearing of His law are an abomination to Him. His number one law is don't be a hypocrite, and the best example of something that greatly aggravates Him is hypocrisy. But He dislikes foolishness in general, and all flight from humanity's distinctives (social behaviors, use of free will, thinking, and language being the main ones). Prayer, as I have learned to use it, is always a deal: Jehovah says, "Give Me what I want from you, and I'll give you what you want from Me."I know of no religion that is not hypocritical, and when I ask Him, He says He hates them all, some more than others. He also hates schools and universities, which is why His deal with me for the Dickcissel required my leaving the hypocritical university. (I had had to leave the church much earlier, to get other prayers answered.)He is into loving relationships mostly, doing justice to those we are supposed to be loving. And being smart. See the Bible as Christians (almost all hypocrites) present it to the world, and He's turned off. But, pick up that book as a document on its own merits, in an effort to do justice to the claim that it's in the world to guide us in dealing lovingly with Him, and He'll send His Spirit to make you understand what is written there. Some people, many people, actually, have without the Bible come to sense Jehovah's presence and involvement. When the Bible was presented to them, they knew at once how to use it effectively. It took years for the Christian missionaries to muddy those waters with their lies, hypocrisy, and distortions.So, it's not about being Christian. It is about being just. The whole evolution/creation controversy is energized by the underlying fact, that if Jehovah created and sustains us and biologic diversity, we justly owe Him what He asks, for the life He is giving us.So, if it's your way to make just deals, and keep your word in those deals, let's get started.

Edge,You ask, I began by observing that good science follows some objective methodology, in order to correct for subjective bias. The more there is subjective bias, the more important it is to follow the methodology strictly. Evolution addresses the very meaning of human life, and is very likely to be biased. Not to mention haunted. So it ought to be using everything known to applied epistemology and the scientific method, to make its claims.An evolutionist could very well dismiss the notion that he or she owes God a tithe of their income, for example. This tithe, it is claimed by the creationists' authority, the Bible, is our just payment to our creator and life support system maintainer and protector (from Satan, chaos, entropy, whatever). But, if evolution is exhaustively true, there is no injustice in not paying this tithe. We don't owe God anything.Now, as long as evolutionists are ignorant of epistemological strategies such as trustworthy authorities, persuasive art, defensible science, historical precedent, or anything that would present not titheing as unjust, they cannot be judged as thieves. taking Gods help, but stealing His tithe. But then justice requires that they be epistemologically self-conscious and diligent to pursue the truth of God's righteous claim that we tithe.It's unjust to fellow humans to believe that electric power comes into your house in the same way that the sun light comes in the morning, because there is a way to validate the power company's claim to existence and rights to payment. Evolutionists who ignore well established scientific methods, which validate God's claims commit this sort of injustice. Of course they wail that there is "no evidence" (like, right, they have examined all available evidence!). If they open their eyes to the evidence that is out there, they find a stack of bills to pay.See now where I am headed?

Hey, Abshalom,Here are some responses to the questions you posed in post 13. I've addressed this elsewhere, but the basic problem is that divinely provided stuff comes with a divine agenda. Knowledge in general, for humans, is a mixed bag on the divine agenda. As my mentor taught me, "be careful the devil does not keep you at what the Lord sets you to." Reading over Ramban's creation interpretation, I get the feeling that he got carried away. Personally, I've spent 30 years coping with the incredible demand for patience that comes with working with God, because He is so willing to take a really long time doing something. That fact came home loud and clear with the word that some 15 billion years have been spent putting this universe together. That He told Ramban one useful thing doesn't mean that He will keep on doing that, at least not until Ramban made full use of the first bit of knowledge. I personally like the way cosmologists do the search for truth, and got the message from this coincidence that God does too. Also, He is saying something to us today about how to get truth using the Bible, a confirmation of the scripture, "It's the glory of God to conceal a matter, and the glory of kings to search out a matter." [qs] Yes. But remember Jeremiah's prophecy "If you separate the precious from the vile, you shall be as My mouth." Hear everything, hold on to what is good. I have found that God glorifies Himself, and shames the devil, by using everything out there, to some degree, to get His point across. Maybe. Normally, everything is validated by two or three confirming messages, according to Yeshua. But, if my God were other than Jehovah, by default, and I heard that, and felt the Holy Spirit confirm it, I'd probably bet a modest part of my life on it. Grace, as purchased by Yeshua, is like an incredibly large inheritance, which has been placed in an account for you, to be used for paying any and all bills for fines and lawsuits. The checkbook is voice activated, with a perfect lie-detector built in, so that you cannot pay a bill you don't think you justly owe. So, when you sincerely wish you hadn't done something, and sincerely hope that you won't do it again, if you speak the correct words of grace, the bill is paid, your conscience becomes clear, bill-collectors go away. But, if you liked goofing off, and getting in trouble, and rather hope it happens again, you can get the bill for that paid first, and then all other bills get paid even if, when you speak your signature, you don't really mean to stop screwing up. And I do mean all, even the ones you haven't opened, or know you have. So, yes, grace covers everything, if handled wisely. Remarkably, many continue to commit and get fined for some offense, and get grace to pay the bill, simply by admitting that they are afflicted with a dysfunctional urge.You cannot sign the check (by voice) however, without authorizing God to change you, so that you behave rightly. Normally, this means agreeing with the law, that it is good. Then, as Paul put it, "it is not I who sin, but sin (the devil) in me." The burden of our not behaving badly falls on our creator, who, as I have noted, sometimes takes the longest time to do things.So, grace covers everything that has happened, and is happening, and will happen. But, it covers nothing until you speak checks to pay the fines into reality, and failures to love the truth, to be sincere, have to be paid for first. Checks for bad choices come next. But it is God, in the end, who makes us behave well, choose well, be sincere, as He pays off our lawsuits and fines.At least, that's how the NT puts it. It has always worked for me, even when I had zero belief, and hoped it wasn't true. Just had to say the right words, and be honest about where I was. "I believe! I'm lying. Help my unbelief." (to myself, "Boy, will I be in trouble with my colleagues if He really is out there and gives me belief!") Which He did, anyway, eventually (many months). And I was in trouble, but by the time the belief came, I didn't mind so much. But all of this, for me was born out of my choice, to have integrity as a scientist, loving the truth, no matter where that took me. I wrote checks as an experiment, to see what would happen. Couldn't argue with what I experienced.

Holmes,First, I need to clarify how I interpret a term you use, the Xian God.The orthodox theological (OT) ontological model for the spiritual world includes many beings, the most eminent of which are a team of unified persons, Jehovah, His Son, Yeshua, and a mystery person called the Holy Spirit, and a rebellious angel called Satan. Other ontological models imagine other beings, with various names, but the Xian system generally operates within the OT models.Now, Christianity normally refers to the Bible as a source of authority, but when one goes to this book for a description of the god of Christianity, one finds an ambiguity. The Bible itself says that it (not Christianity) is directly from the god, Jehovah. So, there is no ambiguity there. But, the Bible describes the works of the being (to us, a god) Satan, one of which is to create a religion called Christianity. So, Christianity holds up as an authority the Bible, which identifies as its god, the person Jehovah. But that same book identifies the religion, Christianity, as being the work of (having the god), Satan. So, which is the Xian god, Jehovah or Satan?All my prayer experiments were done outside of Christianity, testing the integrity and validity of the Bible. I was unambiguously working on the truth behind the idea that the God Jehovah and His team are really out there.Satan, as described in the Bible, is the father of all liars, and all his followers, including all Xians (according to the Bible), are liars. They say their god is Jehovah or "Jesus," meaning Yeshua or Iasous, and the Holy Spirit. But, as liars, we suspect that this is not true, nor are their actions consistent with having those three as their god. So, to get a consistent picture, we have to accept that the real Xian god is Satan, and that therefore the Xian claim to Jehovah/"Jesus"/Holy Spirit as their god is a lie. This makes the Bible, at least, a self-consistent system, the truth of which we can test.Now, to your post:You say: Quite true. The claim to the goodness of any hypothesis is a claim that it has a fairly high plausibility. In a hypothesis that we "set up" (for testing, of course), we usually claim that it is good enough to deserve testing. But prior plausibilities are a bit tricky. The best bet is get a hypothesis from a trustworthy authority. When I trained MS and doctoral students, I made the MS students get their hypotheses from successful scientists or intellectuals. But, all the great advances is science come from hypotheses that most people regard as implausible. Thus, there's a lot to be said for setting up "bad" hypotheses. H-D science nevers proves anything beyond that statement that a given idea has been proven plausible beyond reasonable doubt. There are always an infinite set of explanations for any finite set of data points. Thus, ad hoc explanations are always less influential on an idea's plausibility than successfully confirmed predictions. We prayed for more Condors, and I prayed for more Dickcissels, and we got more, measured as scientifically as we know how. How did God do it? I asked, and with Condors, He said that He gagged Satan, who was causing those who were trying to save the species to fight with one another. Then He "inspired" those who wanted to save the species with wisdom, to know what would work. Basically told them what to do.I'm still trying to learn what He did for the Dickcissel. But one thing was, he put a bee in the bonnet of Venezualan farmers to get busy killing the Dickcissels that were depredating their crops. I had already predicted that this was one way to save the species. When Dickcissels are killed by farmers on their wintering grounds, the killing affects males over females. When they die naturally, females die before males. It was the sex ratio imbalance favoring males that was driving the species to extinction. He also said that He genetically engineered a stronger expression of philopatry in females, through stronger expression of male-like genes, so that females returned more readily to regions of the country where there were fewer cowbirds, a factor responding to the sex ratio imbalance. He also moved (with wind) some birds that were genetically modified out of harm's way, as they migrated back and forth between the US and Venezuala. In a judged debate, you would lose points for saying such a thing. I'm a scientist, recognized as a good one, highly successful. This is how I was taught real science worked, how I proceeded, how I succeeded. I'm sorry you fell for whatever you were mis-taught about science, but it's not too late to redeem yourself and change your mind when finally confronted with the real thing, as you are now. I'd like to see that experiment. However, happiness is a lot more than pleasure and well-being, or neurological states. I hear, for example, that being high on heroin feels better than sex.Remember the points of prayer experiments: Do we have any confirmation that spiritual beings are out there? and How do we interact with them to get the most out of life? I am glad that the existence of other gods is confirmed, and that the artists' stories of selling your soul to the devil for some power he has that you do not, where the devil more-or-less keeps his part of the deal, have some truth to them. Praying aright takes work and training, and selfishness gets in the way. I've spent 30 years working on this question. Time well spent, since if you know how to pray aright, you can do anything. Osama evidently had some god's favor. And they make many appeals to the god of the Bible, my God, based on their willingness to keep many of His laws that we turn away from. My God has said, and put in writing, that He hates the prayers of those who turn away from His laws. But that He hears the prayers of those that keep His commandments, and do the things that please Him. Killing lots of people, these days, probably doesn't please Him, since it ignores His gift of Yeshua which allows for problems with ugly people to be solved otherwise. But those guys honor laws of God that we ignore. I wonder how many pornography businesses were carried out from those towers. Also, He never has been all that crazy about any towers, especially very high towers dedicated to dollars or money, the love of which is the "root of all evil." And I heard rumors that some people who were praying that day, stayed home from the towers. Haven't been able to confirm that one way or the other, but from what I know about praying, it's mostly listening. I'd be surprized if someone who knew Yeshua's voice, asking at the beginning of day, if He had any directions, would have heard Him say, "Go on to work at the Towers." I personally never go anywhere He doesn't send me. Too dangerous out there.People who pray aright, listening to His voice, making deals and keeping them, are rather scarce.But, if we are ignoring Al Quaida's (sp?) prayer campaign against us, we're going to regret it.Good questions.

Holmes, May we back up a bit here, to put the prayer research in it's proper context, as conducted by those doing it?First, there has existed for a long time what we scientists would call the orthodox theology hypothesis, which many intelligent persons find a priori plausible. They derive this prior plausibility in part from what they view as trustworthy authorities, persons whose lives and manners suggest that they know something worth believing, and that their beliefs are generally producing wise decisions. As a scientist, a naturalist who attends to natural models for human biology, I tend to affirm this moderately high prior plausibility. I see earthworms in my garden, dealing with robins and myself, two entities that have more senses, and more intelligence than the worms have themselves. Moreover, one of the beings, me, is "higher" than the other, the robins. More senses, if we include our amplified radios, TVs, etc, and definately higher IQ. The highest being (me) is symbiotic to the worms, the next higher (robin) is predatory.This natural model catches the main points of the orthodox theology hypothesis, demonstrating in a way that I can see that these points are evidently true somewhere in the universe. Thus, it is plausible that they might exist elsewhere.Now, this can only make sense to you if you are not a dogmatist. Dogmatists believe, in the sense of directing all action on the premise, that all ideas are either true or not. They only allow ideas in their minds with plausibility one or zero. HD scientists like myself "believe" (in the sense stated above) that all ideas might be true, with plausibilities ranging from zero to one, but not including those values. Clearly, the human/robin/earthworm system does not prove (plausibility = one) the existence of a God/Satan/humans system, anymore than studies on white rats, cancer, and an anti-cancer drug proves that the same drug will have the same effect on humans cancer. It just makes the idea more plausible. To the HD scientist. Dogmatists just keep dismissing everything that does not move the plausibility of an idea from zero to one, in one demonstration.Anyway, the Jehovah/Satan/mankind system has a moderately high plausibility to begin with. Then, various studies are done using HD methodology, to confirm experimentally that hypothesis. When it is confirmed, the plausibility is regarded as higher. The process also reassures the experimenter that they are not fooling themselves, are not being subjectively self-deceived, and it also increases their understanding of the OT (orthodox theology) hypothesis and its application through prayer.Now, those who have decided for whatever reason that OT is implausible a priori, will have to fit the prayer results into their model of the universe. Perhaps they will suppose that human consciousness has some sort of power (see the PEAR Laboratories studies along these lines). This is where, as I think you mean to imply, strong inference comes in. That is, what we should do now, to do the best science, is to ask the PEAR people, for example, for a set of predictions from their hypothesis, while we make similar predictions from the OT hypothesis. Then we look for contradictions. For example, from OT, we predict that prayers that incorporate repentance from selfishness will be more powerful than positive mental imaging, whereas PEAR researchers might predict the opposite.I haven't done this in publishable forms, but my personal experiments contrasted various ways influencing the outside world through forcing my mind into various thought patterns. I found that I got the most powerful results out of imagined conversations with spiritual beings, compared to the sorts of things PEAR does. I think that PEAR is studying a part of reality--humans are spiritual enough to do God-like things. But much weaker, which allows us to do stronger experiments that confirm that we are not alone.So, I will concede your point as to prayer studies alone, and the history of science up to now. The PEAR results are not as powerful as the prayer studies (the experiment of US praying for a Korean fertility clinic's patients got a 50% increase in fertility!), but they definately confirm the idea that humans have within themselves the powers displayed in prayer.But they are only one part of the research program. The natural model, the various bible validation studies, out-of-body reports, the discoveries of vacuum energy, dark energy, dark matter--all of these add to the plausibility that we are not alone. Witztum's Bible Code studies actually "prove" it, in the sense of putting it beyond reasonable doubt.And, the OT hypothesis actually largely agrees with the oft-stated notion that "science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God." That is, the OT hypothesis predicts that anyone doing personal scientific studies will have more success that any public scientific effort, because the hypothesis asserts that the symbiotic beings being studied are intimate lovers, while the parasitic beings being studied are dis-information experts. Thus, if OT is true, studying it in public science can only take you as far as the symbiotic beings are willing to go, publically. When I came to understand this part of the hypothesis, I sought the appropriate social controls (personal counselors, instead of "peer review") and carried on. OT asserts that anyone who is a scientist before they are a lover, is totally subject to the disinformation campaign of the predatory spiritual beings. They are subject to the "evil genius" handicap in philosophy.So, only a HD scientist can discover the truth of this matter, if it is true. Dogmatists are doomed. No, not "must be real." "Is more likely to be real than we thought previously. So, let's do some other studies."And, of course, the first part of your quote is invariably true. We expect science to keep moving on. HD scientists expect whatever they think to be evenually shown wrong, sort of. Newton's theories will be replaced by Einstein's, and Einstein's by someone elses. So it goes. This is even more true with Jehovah. Whatever we think He is like, it changes, forever, as we get closer and closer to Him. Our earlier views retain a certain usefulness, as Newton's models even in the face of Einstein's corrections. But, change, change, change your mind. That's life. That's real science. Authority, to be trustworthy, does imply good fruit, good methodology. And, at its best, it only tells you what to look for, what ideas to invest in. Authority (human authority, that is) is helpful in assessing prior plausibilities. Of course, when you start hearing God Himself speak, "faith comes." But, "faith without works is dead." So, Jehovah Himself submits to your principle. Even if you hear Him say something, and get faith for it, until that faith and what He said is confirmed, you haven't any life at all. Both questions are useful. The OT answer is, "Prayer got Jehovah to do certain things." The PEAR answer is, "You imagined certain things happening, and those mental images forced those things to happen." Both are probably true, in my opinion. Scientific studies correlating grades with measures of "success" defined as greater income, prestige, self-reported happiness, success in family life, and health, show a generally zero correlation, with a trend towards a curvilinear effect, higher values at the B+ level, and higher values with the variance in transcript grades. These studies were done back in the sixties, and a meta-analysis was done on them by, I think, a faculty member at K-State where I was working. a fellow named Donald something or other. I can still see the green-bound 8x12 booklet with all the studies. I made a big stink about this at the time, to get grades dropped from University life. This had been done successfully at some Med-Schools. They gave me tenure anyway, but clung to the grades. Cowards and hypocrites!That having been said, an A in Physical Chemistry impresses me a lot. Good for you. I did the "ideal free distribution" work after getting my gentleman's C in P-chem. All I could understand was the derivation of the ideal gas law. I figured if that kind of thinking was good there, it might work explaining territorial pressure, population densities, and habitat movements and selection in birds. Which it did.We need to say these things, by the way, to affirm that we have something worth listening to. There's a lot of voices out there. Cannot argue with all of them. I was thinking of :ae:'s discussion on souls on another thread, describing the mind-life of persons who were brain-dead in hypothermic operations. Also, there's a long-term element to happiness, some integral over the long haul. I'm actually not as momentarily thrilled these days as I have been in the past, say when I was hot on the trail of the Dickcissels, or was rocking my daughters to sleep, or was with one of the women I have loved. But I sense being happier, anyway. I wouldn't go back to "the good old days" even if I could. Somehow, being more aware of and sensitive to the horror of the times, and doing more about it, makes me happier, than when I was exclusively, if joyfully, off on a toot of sorts. Not to me, despite all you said about the possible severity of Jehovah. I'm not about to judge Jehovah for how he thinks, or for who He allows to be killed in the line of duty. I do ask about these things, and get satisfying answers. You seem to have missed the point I made about Him hating all religions, for example. Also, Satan lives in this world too, and has the freedom to do bad things (and be punished for it), just as you have the freedom to drive your car head on into some oncoming traffic, and suffer the consequences. But I have the freedom to walk humbly with my God, and the right to avoid your self and other destructive behavior. But, I might wisely choose a chance to lay my life down for my neighbor, and die with assurance of heaven, and substantial treasure there.Unless Lean Uris ("Exodus") misrepresented the situation in Germany in the 30's, every Jew in the country was repeatedly warned to leave, and given resources to do so. They were all free to avoid what Hitler and the Germans were free to do. Hitler, in Mein Kampf, actually named the gas he was going to use to exterminate any Jew who chose to stay. All parties involved made their choices, and got the consequences for that choice. And Jehovah, though broken hearted and disgusted by what was happening, stood by His promise not to take back the freedom He gave us all.So, if you want to spend eternity with Satan, that's what free will is all about. Hell is horrible, but not having the freedom to choose heaven or hell is worse.I still estimate, on a meta-analysis of all the various studies, that it is plausible beyond reasonable doubt, in HD science, that OT is "true."Stephen

Coragyps,You say, Jehovah will let you get away with that longer than your power company. But the lights will dim enough, so that if you decide to do the experiment He has set up for you to test Him, (Malachi, 3:10) you'll get impressive results.