Firstly, there are several logical fallacies you have employed in your discussion of the evolution of dreaming:
Psi of the gaps? Just because science can't currently explain something, does not automatically mean that random explanation X wins. The same tactics are used by creationists, thinking that pointing out holes in the theory of evolution is positive proof in support of a creator god. It doesn't work that way.
Personal incredulity. Science does give explanations for how dreaming developed, and there are theories about its purpose. But you say these reasons aren't "good enough." Parallels could again be drawn to creationists saying how they couldn't possibly imagine how they came from monkeys.
Straw man. You presume that every single function of the human brain must have a specific evolutionary advantage. This isn't necessarily true--consider our ability to play the piano. Clearly, the ability to play the piano could not have emerged or developed due to evolutionary pressures--pianos did not even exist until some time in the 1700s. The ability is an emergent one resulting from baser abilities that did survive and flourish due to evolutionary forces (math ability, pattern recognition, etc.) Who's to say dreaming isn't a similar emergent property?
Secondly, the fact that we can reproduce hallucinations and waking dream-like states using chemical and electrical stimulation of the brain, as well as track the different areas of the brain that are in use when this is happening (using fMRI machines) does seem to indicate pretty solidly that these things are strictly functions of the brain.
You keep saying that the burden of proof is with the scientists to "prove" a materialist explanation for dreams, hallucinations, NDEs, and so on, but that's really not how science works. I'm not familiar enough with any of the studies you allude to as evidence to be able to specifically comment on those, but if they really do exist and imply what you are claiming they imply, then it is up to those scientists to continue their work, progress their theories, run more experiments, and build up a body of evidence to support their claims. If scientists had to "disprove" every crackpot claim ever made, they'd have no time to do any real science.  |