The following is adapted from chapter 6 of I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist:
The God-of-the-Gaps fallacy occurs when someone falsely believes that God caused the event when it really was caused by undiscovered natural phenomena. For example, people used to believe that lightning was caused directly by God. There was a gap in our knowledge of nature, so we attributed the effect to God. Darwinists assert that theists are doing the same thing by claiming that God created the universe and life. Are they correct? No, for a number of reasons.
First, when we conclude that intelligence created the first cell or the human brain, it=s not simply because we lack evidence of a natural explanation; it=s also because we have positive, empirically detectable evidence for an intelligent cause. A message (specified complexity) is empirically detectable. When we detect a messageClike ATake out the garbageCMom@ or 1,000 encyclopediasCwe know that it must come from an intelligent being because all of our observational experience tells us that messages come only from intelligent beings. Every time we observe a message, it comes from an intelligent being. We couple this data with the fact that we never observe natural laws creating messages, and we know an intelligent being must be the cause. That=s a valid scientific conclusion based on observation and repetition. It=s not an argument from ignorance, nor is it based on any Agap@ in our knowledge.
Second, Intelligent Design scientists are open to both natural and intelligent causes. They are not opposed to continued research into a natural explanation for the first life. They=re simply observing that all known natural explanations fail, and all empirically detectable evidence points to an intelligent Designer.
Now, one can question the wisdom of continuing to look for a natural cause of life. William Dembski, who has published extensive research on Intelligent Design, asks, AWhen does determination [to find a natural cause] become pigheadedness? . . . How long are we to continue a search before we have the right to give up the search and declare not only that continuing the search is vain but also that the very object of the search is nonexistent?” Consider the implications of Dembski=s question. Should we keep looking for a natural cause for phenomena like Mount Rushmore or messages like ATake out the garbageCMom@? When is the case closed?
Walter Bradley, a coauthor of the seminal work The Mystery of Life=s Origin, believes Athere doesn=t seem to be the potential of finding a [natural explanation]@ for the origin of life. He added, AI think people who believe that life emerged naturalistically need to have a great deal more faith than people who reasonably infer that there=s an Intelligent Designer.” Regardless of whether or not you think we should keep looking for a natural explanation, the main point is that ID scientists are open to both natural and intelligent causes. It just so happens that an intelligent cause best fits the evidence.
Third, the Intelligent Design conclusion is falsifiable. In other words, ID could be disproven if natural laws were someday discovered to create specified complexity. However, the same cannot be said about the Darwinist position. Darwinists don=t allow falsification of their Acreation story@ because, as we have described, they don=t allow any other creation story to be considered. Their Ascience@ is not tentative or open to correction; it=s more closed-minded than the most dogmatic church doctrine the Darwinists are so apt to criticize.
Finally, it=s actually the Darwinists who are committing a kind of God-of the-Gaps fallacy. Darwin himself was once accused of considering natural selection Aan active power or Deity@ (see chapter 4 of Origin of Species). But it seems that natural selection actually is the deity or AGod of the Gaps@ for the Darwinists of today. When they are totally at a loss for how irreducibly complex, information-rich biological systems came into existence, they simply cover their gap in knowledge by claiming that natural selection, time, and chance did it.
The ability of such a mechanism to create information-rich biological systems runs counter to the observational evidence. Mutations that aren’t neutral are nearly always harmful, and time and chance do the Darwinists no good, as we explained in chapter 5. At best, natural selection may be responsible for minor changes in living species, but it cannot explain the origin of the basic forms of life. You need a living thing to start with for any natural selection to take place. Yet, despite the obvious problems with their mechanism, Darwinists insist that Natural Selection covers any gap in their knowledge. Moreover, they willfully ignore the positive, empirically detectable evidence for an intelligent being. This is not science but the dogma of a secular religion. One could say that Darwinists, like the opponents of Galileo, are letting their religion (or at least their philosophy) overrule scientific observations.
You have been corrected more than once on this “1,000 encyclopedias” claim of yours. Just because something has as many bits as 1000 encyclopedias does not mean that it has as much information. Since we don’t understand the language we have no way of knowing how much information is carried in those bits. For all we know it could be 99% gibberish.
Mr. Turek, it seems a major question is whether “I don’t know” means something. The Darwinists and many scientists seem to pull this out as a premise for not believing in God. What do you think?
Paul
Kendenny,
First, If you want to “correct” someone, you need to correct Richard Dawkins because the “1000 encyclopedias” figure is his, not mine. Might that be why he is suggesting aliens as the source for the first life in the new movie “Expelled?” Now, I know you’ve taken exception to this, but go see the movie to see it for yourself. That’s what he said, and for good reason. If he’s not going to posit God, the evidence tells him to posit some kind of intelligence.
Second, even if it is 99% gibberish (which I have yet to see a scientist claim), that means1% is not. So there are 10 encyclopedias worth of software-like code in microscopic one-celled creature (really, 10 complete sets of encyclopedias). What is your natural cause for that?
Third, as we have already discussed, the issue of “junk DNA” doesn’t necessarily mean it has no function, but simply that no function has yet to be discovered. And again, “junk DNA” implies that some DNA is NOT junk. In fact, we know some DNA does have specific functions. Who coded that?
The bottom line is that DNA points to intelligence as does the structure and irreducible complexity of the cell. You can falsify this but telling what natural forces can create DNA and life from non-life.
Key point: This is NOT just a negative case (there is no natural law), but a positive case (effects like this point to intelligence).
Thanks for you posts.
Blessings,
Frank Turek
Please stop claiming Richard Dawkins thinks we were created by aliens. This is an extremely disingenuous tactic. Interestingly enough, Dawkins had anarticle published just today in the LA Times that refutes all of this nonsense rather well. In short, it is a common approach, when attempting to show a “theory” (I use that term here with great reservations) to be wrong, to posit the most plausible version of the theory and to then show how it is wrong, and thus, if the most plausible possibility is incorrect, it is highly likely that the entire theory is wrong. ID proponents have at times said something like “for all we know, the designer might be an alien from outer space” to distance themselves from the straight up creationists. This is why Dawkins proposed the aliens scenario. I suggest you read the article though, as usual, Dawkins can say it far better than I.
I read Dawkins’ article in the LA Times per jjberg’s suggestion. It refutes nothing well at all, except for the claim that Dawkins posits space aliens because he sees that need for an intelligence. I think it’s plain that Dawkins doesn’t believe in space aliens.
Having said that, I also think it’s plain that Dawkins does believe in miracles. How else does he explain a code roughly equivalent in complexity to the English language appearing in the first, single-celled life, without a designer?
Finally, I think it’s plain that Dawkins is somewhat less than an honest man. He makes several jibes at “creationists” throughout his article based on their claim that “natural selection is random,” and arguing that natural selection is non-random. The problem is, neo-Darwinian gradualism does not rely solely on natural selection, it relies on mutation with natural selection, and on genetic drift. Mutation and genetic drift are random — which is why Dawkins doesn’t mention them while making his disingenuous little jibes. And while natural selection, strictly speaking, isn’t itself random, it’s merely the name for the undirected process of survival in the wake of a random mutation. To say that neo-Darwinianism is not based on a random model of the universe is about as dishonest as an argument can get.
I’ve never been impressed with Dawkins, and I’m even less so now. But I’m willing to concede that he doesn’t believe life on earth was begun by space aliens.
I missed the right thread with my earlier comments. In any event, score one for evoluion. This is typical. Frank has been unable to explain the important things clearly. Frank seems unable to understand the meaning of faith; he believes he can prove he is right through logic. Jesus warned us against this kind of thinking. Although his ferver is welcome, he embarasses the rest of us with his idea that he can prove anything related to God. To attempt a logical refutation of cosmology and evolution, which are filled with speculation, is a waste of time. Accept Ben Stein’s premise that we just don’t know and allow intelligent debate.
Paul
Paul
Paul,
Please claify what you are talking about. What “important things” have I not explained clearly? What did Jesus warn us about?
Blessings,
Frank
Mr. Turek,
I have been belligerent, and I apologize. No excuse. Please forgive me.
It is my understanding that Jesus calls us to faith rather than to logical arguments. We can certainly pick at the evolutionists on the grounds that there are no intermediate fossils. But it seems we should stress that if they indeed ever produce conclusive evidence of their ideas, it will not negate the huge evidence of a Creator. As the evolutionists’ icon Richard Dawkins has indicated, he is clueless as to how life was created. He even proposes aliens as the creator. This sounds like Scientology, where a trillion-year-old alien created havoc, etc.
Paul
Paul Henri said April 24th, 2008 at 10:33 pm:
~~~~It is my understanding that Jesus calls us to faith rather than to logical arguments. ~~~~
Paul, this is a false dichotomy. Jesus calls us to faith based on reason, not in spite of it. Here are a few passages for you to peruse keeping in mind that there are a host of others.
Isaiah 1:18
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD…
Isaiah 41:20-22
That they may see, and know, and consider, and understand together, that the hand of the LORD hath done this, and the Holy One of Israel hath created it. Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob. Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come.
Romans 1:19-20
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Acts 17:2
And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
Acts 18:4
And he [Paul] reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
Acts 24:25
And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee.
1 Peter 3:15
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
Paul did not hold to this idea of faith rather than logic (reasoning). Pay closest attention to 1 Pet. 3:15 where God commands us to be ready always to give an “answer” for the reason of the hope that is in us. That word “answer” is apologia from which we get our word “apologetics”. It means literally a logical argument.
Jesus himself used logic and made the same kind of arguments. There is NOWHERE in scripture that he warns against this kind of thinking else he would be a hypocrite.
So what Mr. Turek is doing with his articles, with his apologetic work, is obeying the Lord.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
Paul Henri says: “We can certainly pick at the evolutionists on the grounds that there are no intermediate fossils.”
Why do you keep saying this when there are thousands of intermediate fossils. For example, horses, donkeys, and zebras are descendants of a small, somewhat deer-like creature that lived 55 million years ago. Fossils exist showing every nuance of change from that creature to the animals that exist today.
The claim that there are no intermediate fossils is a blatant lie.
“A message (specified complexity) is empirically detectable.”
Silly nonsense.
I keep saying there are no intermediate fossils because there ain’t, as far as I am aware. The only ones I am willing to debate are the microscopic types. And then, what do they say about macroscopic organisms?
A false dichotomy? What does that mean insofar as what I said?
Paul
Paul Henri says: “I keep saying there are no intermediate fossils”
Your saying it doesn’t make it true. There are thousands if not millions of intermediate fossils.
Granted, I could be out of touch with the cutting edge of evolution. But an icon of evolutionary theory, Stephen Jay Gould, had to construct punctuated equilibrium to explain the long pervasive gaps in the fossil record. As far as I know, this is a hotbed of high intellectual debate. It follows that the intermediate-fossil argument is suspect.
Paul
Paul. Your reading on the subject appears to have been confined to the creationist literature which uses out-of-context quotes and out-and-out lies to try to discredit evolutionary science. If you would read the actual scientific literature, you would learn the truth. Punctuated equilibrium came about, not to explain gaps in the fossil record, but to explain long periods of stasis. Originally it was thought that evolution was a steady, continuous process. The fossil record did not support that. Instead what the fossil record showed was long periods of no change, followed by periods of rapid change.
As far as transitionals, the most complete lineage to be found in the fossil record is the evolution of horses. Check these links and see for yourself the transition.
Hyracotherium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyracotherium
Orohippus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orohippus
Mesohippus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesohippus
Miohippus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miohippus
Parahippus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parahippus
Merychippus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merychippus
Dinohippus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinohippus
Finally equus, modern horses, donkeys, and zebras
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equus_%28genus%29
And in summary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse
As far as other transitionals, what would you call Australopithecus, the ape with distinctly human-like hips and feet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus
Paul
I posted a reply but as it contained links it’s waiting moderation and since Frank is apparently not available I don’t know how long it will take to show up. So here is the same information without the links.
Do some reading on horse evolution. 55 million years ago there was a creature we call Hyracotherium about the size of a medium sized dog and somewhat deer-like in appearance. Fossils have been found showing practically every nuance of change from this creature to modern-day horses.
Secondly Australopithecus, ancestor of humans. An ape with very human-like hips and feet. These are clearly transitional fossils.
There are thousands of others.
Kendenny,
I do not have the expertise to challenge your sources, even if I could understand them. As a layperson, insofar as current evolutionary theory is concerned, I must rely on the experts. And I have learned never to argue with experts.
But believe me, I am not convinced evolutionary theory is invalid. The evidence is more than sufficient to conclude it is valid. What Mr. Turek wants is the opportunity to present an opposing viewpoint. But as Ben Stein points out, such scientists are expelled from the debate.
My premise is our rulers of education are oppressing free speech about evolution. Of course we don’t want raving lunatics to have appointments as assistant professors just because of the First Amendment’s freedom of speech. The brilliant founders realized there are always exceptions to rules, and therefore, they created the third branch of government, the Judiciary. If the professor does little but stand up and rave about evil Darwinists, he should be removed. (This point of view implies tenure is stupid.) If he presents the huge evidence in favor of evolution and spends a little time presenting plausible ideas questioning evolution or in favor of intelligent design, he should be allowed to do so. It is my understanding he is not being allowed.
Many people do not understand logic, and it seems college rulers don’t either. The college rulers need to understand the nature of logic and debate or, if they do, need to stop allowing their beliefs to stop debate. For example, let us suppose Mrs. Able and Mrs. Brown collide at an intersection controlled by a traffic light. Each testify they had the green light. Mrs. Brown introduces evidence that Mrs. Able was driving a carload of screaming children and wants us to infer it is more likely than not that Mrs. Able was distracted and did not see the red light. Mrs. Able can argue that because of the mayhem, she was paying rapt attention to her driving so she could get these crazy kids off to school safely. The same evidence, two different conclusions.
All the Best
Paul. The reason intelligent design is expelled from the science classroom is that it has no science. Intelligent design basically says “We don’t see how this could have happened without a designer so therefore there must have been a designer.” There is no test that can be done to confirm or falsify it, therefore it is not science. Teach it in philosophy or theology classes but keep it out of science classes because it is not science.
Kendenny,
You have yet to respond to the key point: Design is empirically detectable. Otherwise, Gould could not say something is not designed perfectly. If design is empirically detectable, then it is scientific.
DNA points to intelligence as does the structure and irreducible complexity of the cell. You can falsify this but telling what natural forces can create DNA and life from non-life. What natural law does this?
Moreover, this is NOT just a negative case (there is no natural law), but a positive case (effects like this point to intelligence).
Thanks again for your posts.
Frank Turek
The reason evolution should be expelled from the science classroom is that it has no science. Evolution basically offers no evidence or argument whose conclusion is “therefore evolution must be true.” There is no test that can be done to confirm or falsify it, therefore it is not science. Teach it in philosophy or atheology classes but keep it out of science classes because it is not science.
;-D
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
Evolution can be tested. If evolution is true we should expect to see A. If we were to find B then that would mean evolution is false. And we do see A all the time and we’ve never seen B.
If the theory of evolution is correct then we should expect to see biological structures which serve no purpose. When was the last time you used your toenails for anything? Have you discovered the purpose of darkling beetle wings yet?
If humans are descendants of apes we should find fossils which have some ape characteristics and some human characteristics. Voila Australopithecus, the ape with human hips and feet.
When the same feature evolves multiple times independently we would expect to see major differences in the way it’s implemented. Eyes evolved in three groups of animals independently. Vertibrates, mollusks, and arthropods have eyes but the common ancestors between any two of these groups did not have eyes. Therefore eyes in these three groups are very different in the way they work. I like to point this out to those arguing for intelligent design and ask why it looks like they were designed by three different designers.
What would falsify evolution would be to find a creature that could fit into more than one place in the nested hierarchy, say an insect with feathers, a reptile or fish that produces milk, a spider with a spinal column.
Can you offer some falsifiable predictions that intelligent design makes?
Design can only be detected with knowledge of the designer. We can detect design in things designed by humans because we know about human designers. Irreducible complexity simply means “We don’t know how it could have happened naturally so therefore it has to be supernatural.”
If intelligent design is true then there should not be any biological structures without a purpose. What is the purpose of human toenails? How about darkling beetle wings? You can falsify evolution by stating what purpose these things serve.
~~~~Evolution can be tested. If evolution is true we should expect to see A. If we were to find B then that would mean evolution is false.~~~~
You just affirmed the negative arguments used by Creation scientists to prove God by this point since Evolution (natural origin) is a strong disjunction with Creation (supernatural origin). I appreciate you making this so easy.
~~~~And we do see A all the time and we’ve never seen B.~~~~
Please give even one example of A. Please note that A must be some example of evidence or logical argument whose conclusion is “…therefore Evolution MUST be true.” In 23 years of asking, I have yet to see even one of either.
~~~~If the theory of evolution is correct then we should expect to see biological structures which serve no purpose. When was the last time you used your toenails for anything? Have you discovered the purpose of darkling beetle wings yet?~~~~
You are making the same types of arguments you accuse Creationists of making, which makes you a hypocrite (a thing not necessarily evil in your subjective moral world). Asking me what I use my toenails for is kinda silly but since you asked, I use them to dig from time to time, especially in the sand on the beach. I also use them to scratch my lower legs and feet.
And just because the “wings” do not have a known use, doesn’t make them useless. An argument from ignorance is not the same thing as a knowledge claim such as “I know darkling beetle wings have no purpose” therefore evolution is true. At the very least I would hypothesize that they are kept in reserve as an adaptation for (micro-evolution) for when the beetle population needs to fly.
Regardless, these are not claims of A therefore Evolution MUST be true. These are claims of “you don’t know if B is true” so Evolution MUST be true, which is not the same.
~~~~If humans are descendants of apes we should find fossils which have some ape characteristics and some human characteristics. Voila Australopithecus, the ape with human hips and feet.~~~~
This could also be explained by a much wider diversity of life in the past and a wide range of adaptation of apes, which have since become extinct. neither of which require the conclusion therefore Evolution MUST be true.
Is it not the Evolutionist that says that any proposition that fits more than one model is no proof of any model?
As for Lucy, your Australopithecus, see http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/52 for an in depth review of that debacle for the Evolutionists.
How do you know that AL-288-1 even reproduced? All a fossil tells you is that the specific animal those bones belong to did was eventually die.
A wide range of fossils, a large diversity of life, is not conclusive evidence of Evolution. It does not demand Evolution to be true. You keep going back to these old mainstays of the Evolutionary argument but they all have been answered and shown not to be conclusive evidence. Where is CONCLUSIVE evidence of Evolution. Where is the one thing that leads to the necessary conclusion “therefore Evolution MUST be true.”
And before you ask for my argument concluding “therefore God must be true” I’ll refer you back to the “Who Made God” thread where I have begun such an argument through a systematic presentation of proposition, syllogisms, and points.
~~~~What would falsify evolution would be to find a creature that could fit into more than one place in the nested hierarchy, say an insect with feathers, a reptile or fish that produces milk, a spider with a spinal column.~~~~
No, all this would do would create a flurry of assumptions from evolutionists about how those particular features evolved within the model. Room would be forced into the tree, just like Lucy was forced into the tree. Evolutionists assume evolution before examining the data never having proven evolution to be true first. Even Darwin made the “blind leap of faith” from adaptation (micro-evolution) to common descent (macro-evolution). This is the kind of faith atheists have and it takes more of this to believe in evolution and atheism than to be a Christian.
~~~~Can you offer some falsifiable predictions that intelligent design makes?~~~~
I already have.
I stated that ID predicts biological systems that are irreducibly complex. This does not mean that no known explanation yet exists for how those systems evolved, but that they cannot logically have evolved from lessor subsystems individually.
ID predicts that empirical design will be found in biological, atomical, and astronomical systems within the universe.
The SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) project is a classic example of the testability of intelligence. Basically, millions of dollars were pumped into a project to detect codes or messages from outer space that would indicate intelligence. Those involved in the project recognized that mathematical patterns, codes, languages, algorithms, and various other “fundamental laws” would be accepted as evidence that some type of intelligence did exist. The premise that can be surmised from the SETI program is that intelligence could be recognized and distinguished from non-intelligent, natural explanations; the required criteria for this recognition being some type of code, mathematical sequence, physical patterns, etc. Such codes have been found in biological systems such as DNA and living organisms [from AP Press article 2778].
ID predicts that life only comes from life.
Specifically Biblical Creationism has made some useful predictions. Considering the theory that the earth was at one time surrounded by “waters above the firmament” the vapor canopy and that the atmospheric pressure was much higher and things were better in that environment for organic life, Creation scientists hypothesized that humans would heal faster under high atmospheric pressure. The little girl, Jessica, that fell down that well so many years go had her leg saved exactly because of that hypothesis. Instead of amputating a leg mostly black from lack of blood circulation, they put her in a hyperbaric chamber and the leg healed just fine, no amputation necessary. Sports teams and celebrities use them for much the same reasons.
I’ll reiterate, check out the argument presented in the “Who Made God” thread. I will present systematic, logical arguments that conclude “therefore God MUST be true.”
I could provide more, but Iron Man opens today and I’m trying to get my wife to take me. Everyone have a great weekend!
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
Ernie. Your demand of conclusive evidence is unreasonable. There is no conclusive evidence of any scientific theory. All any scientific theory can do is say “If the theory is true we should see A. If we see B then the theory is false.” In the case of the theory of evolution A is always seen and B is never seen.
And you said “An argument from ignorance is not the same thing as a knowledge claim ”
Keep this in mind I’ll bring it up later.
Then you said “This could also be explained by a much wider diversity of life in the past and a wide range of adaptation of apes, ”
Of course this would mean that 6000 years ago when the planet was created there were as many species as there are individuals today.
Then you said “Is it not the Evolutionist that says that any proposition that fits more than one model is no proof of any model?”
No. It’s that any proposition that fits any possible model is no proof of any model. “Intelligent design” is such a proposition.
This was good “As for Lucy, your Australopithecus, see (link removed to prevent moderation delays. The link is in Ernie’s post) for an in depth review of that debacle for the Evolutionists.”
This article is remarkable for it’s misrepresentations and out-and-out lies. The main thrust of it is “Since scientists can’t agree 100% about everything that Lucy represents then Lucy is clearly a chimpanzee and the theory of evolution is false.” I could (but I’m not going to) use the same logic to claim that “Since theists can’t agree 100% about the nature of God then clearly God doesn’t exist.”
Now. You have claimed in past posts that you are certain the the earth is no more than 10,000 years old and that all species were created at the same time. If that is true then we should expect to see fossils of present-day creatures at all levels in the fossil record. Is that what we find? NO. Are you familiar with a thing called the K/T boundary? It’s a layer of sediment found all over the earth that is very high in iridium. Scientists believe it is the result of a comet (or asteroid, I’m not sure) hitting the earth around 65 million years ago causing the extinction of the dinosaurs. Now pay close attention. No large mammal fossil has ever (And I cant’ emphasize the word ever enough). Has EVER been found below the K/T boundary. And no dinosaur fossil has ever> (Again I place extreme emphasis on the word ever). No dinosaur fossil has EVER been found above the K/T boundary. So Ernie, why haven’t any human or large mammal fossils EVER been found below the K/T boundary. If Young-Earth-Creationism is true then fossils of all present day species should be found at all levels within the fossil record.
Finally you said “I stated that ID predicts biological systems that are irreducibly complex. This does not mean that no known explanation yet exists for how those systems evolved, but that they cannot logically have evolved from lessor subsystems individually.”
I refer you to what you wrote above about “arguments from ignorance”.
And as far as toenails are concerned, you could dig in the sand just as easily with nail-less toes. In fact better because you wouldn’t have to later remove the sand grains that got lodged under the nail. And you could scratch your other leg just as easily with nail-less toes. In fact, when I use my foot to scratch my leg, I use the side of my foot, not my toenails.
Kendenny,
I agree this debate is philosophical, because evolution is simply a theory. But philosophers that question evolution are expelled. We know the ultimate issue is whether a supernatural being created the universe and ultimately life on earth. But evolutionists, for the most part, want to limit the debate to, as it were, evolution. This is valuable when researching evolution, but it is close-minded when discussing whether there is a creator, an intelligent designer.
All the Best
“You have yet to respond to the key point: Design is empirically detectable.”
How? By whom? Snowflakes are designed? I don’t think so.
“Otherwise, Gould could not say something is not designed perfectly.”
Non sequitur. To admit that the current “design” is not optimal does not say anything about the “how”, “why”, “by whom”, it was “designed”. So there’s no point in talking about “design” if we cannot agree on the fundamental definition of what we are talking about. Everyone agrees that life “appears” designed. So do snowflakes. So what?
“If design is empirically detectable, then it is scientific.”
I claim that your undefined “design” is not always empirically detectable.
“DNA points to intelligence”
Nonsense.
“as does the structure”
Nonsense.
“irreducible complexity of the cell”
This attempt to disprove evolution has been falsified.
“You can falsify this by telling what natural forces can create DNA and life from non-life. What natural law does this?”
The laws of physics and chemistry. But this is abiogenesis, not evolution. But, after all, this is a “privileged universe”!
“Moreover, this is NOT just a negative case (there is no natural law),”
But there is a natural law. Everything is fundamentally physics!
“but a positive case (effects like this point to intelligence).”
Nonsense. What intelligence? Where? Why? How? When?
Evolution is a theory and a fact. The fact is the part that tells us “It does happen” the theory is the part that tells us “how it happens”
Gravity is also a theory and a fact btw
Why is a philosopher trying to do the work of a biologist? If I had a biological lab and hired someone as a biologist who later turned out to be a philosopher instead, would I be wrong to fire him for deception and/or incompetence?
This is what you are challenging so, to the point that you limit the debate to this, evolutionists will refute it.
The problem you are facnig is that evolution is explaining the very large gap where the Christian god was “hiding” and was used until recent history as proof of his existence. Evolution is the biggest thorn in the creationism idea is what is causing so many people to attempt to discredit it.
If you want to discuss if there is an intelligent creator, nobody will bring up evolution. However if you use the argument that there is a creator because of the complexity of life, then evolution will own you.
If you want to bring a quick end to a debate with a creation magic believer just ask them two questions. First ask them what is the name of the mechanism that keeps microevolution from becoming macroevolution over time. There isn’t anything of course because these are really the same thing. Next ask them to explain why Baylor, Notre Dame, TCU, Brigham Young, St. Mary’s, Stanford, Princeton, Muhlenburg, SMU and every other Christian college and university in the world with a science department teaches evolution and common descent. These two facts drive the final nails in the coffin of creationism and Intelligent Design. In turn creationism has driven the last nails in the coffin of Christianity. No person of sense wants to be associated with or confused with or misidentified as a creationist. This is why 72 churches in America close their doors every week and 80 percent of Christian college students reject their faith at some time during their college years. The creationists are killing their own religion. I say we let them.
This sentence is just rich: One could say that Darwinists, like the opponents of Galileo, are letting their religion (or at least their philosophy) overrule scientific observations.
Boris says: No Protestant denomination accepted the findings of Galileo until well into the 19th century. People from the very same science hating cult who denied the findings of Galileo now hypocritically criticize their Protestant forerunners for denying the findings of Galileo! Of course the writer is blissfully unaware of the historical parallels between the anti-cosmology, anti-evolution, anti-geology, anti-anthropology, anti-astronomy arguments of modern Protestants and the same arguments that Protestants used 200 years ago to deny the roundness of the earth. Anyone who claims the Bible doesn’t say the earth is flat should check the mountain of literature written by 19th century Protestant apologists that prove that it does.
God of the gaps
I will begin this article with two postulates: 1) God has created this universe; 2) He has brought man in this universe with some purpose.
I am not claiming here that these two postulates are true, or that I can prove them to be true. But I want to show here that if these two postulates are true, then God will always be the God of the gaps. Anyone who will be reading this article should not forget that there is an “if” clause in the last sentence.
Now I will begin with the supposition that God has created this universe. If God has created this universe, then He could have created it in four different ways: 1) He created it in such a way that there was no necessity for Him to intervene in it after creation, 2) After creation He intervened in it, but these interventions were a bare minimum, that is, He intervened only when these were absolutely necessary. In order to clarify my point here, I will say that He intervened only when He found that without His intervention the universe would come to a standstill, 3) He created the universe in such a way that in order to keep it going He had to make very frequent interventions in it, 4) God’s total intervention after creation.
If it was the purpose of God to keep mankind crippled in every possible way, then He would have adopted either the third or the fourth way while creating the universe. This is because in these two cases man, in spite of his having sufficient intelligence and reasoning power, will fail to unveil the secrets of nature, because in almost every phenomenon of nature that he will decide to study he will ultimately find that there always remains an unknown factor, for which he will have no explanation. For him the book of nature will thus remain closed for ever. But if it were God’s purpose that man be master of His creation, then it is quite natural for Him that He would try to keep the book of nature as much open to him as possible, so that with the little intelligence he has been endowed with man will be able to decipher the language of nature, and with that acquired knowledge he will also be able to improve the material conditions of his life. In that case God will try to adopt the policy of maximum withdrawal from His creation. He will create the universe in such a way that without His intervention the created world will be able to unfold itself. However that does not mean that He will never intervene. He will definitely intervene when without His intervention the created world would become stagnant. In such a scenario man will be able to give an explanation of almost all physical events in scientific language. But in those cases where God has actually intervened, he will fail to do so.
So I think there is no reason for us to be ashamed of the “God of the gaps” hypothesis. Yes, if God has created the universe, and if God’s purpose was that man be master of His creation, then He would try to keep as little gap in His creation as possible. But the minimum gap that would be ultimately left can never be bridged by any sort of scientific explanation. God will also reside in that gap. Why should we be ashamed of that?
The whole matter can be seen from another angle. Those who strongly believe that God has created this universe also believe that He has created it alone. Now is it believable that a God, who is capable of creating such a vast universe alone, is not capable enough to keep a proof of His existence in the created world? So I think it is more reasonable to believe that while creating the universe God has also kept a proof of His existence in something created. This proof is open to us all, but we have not found it, because we have not searched for it. So even if it is the case that God has never intervened in the created world after its creation, still then there will be a gap in this natural world, purposefully left by God, for which science will find no explanation. This will be the ultimate gap that can only be filled up by invoking God.
Therefore, I can conclude this article in this way: If God created this universe, and if God wanted man to be the master of His creation, then God would willingly choose to be the “God of the gaps”.
So it is quite logical that a God who will create man with some purpose will always prefer to be the God of the gaps.