Re: [asa] Timaeus--ID isn't "god of the gaps"

Randy Isaac wrote:
-------------
Timaeus wrote:
"ID isn't a "God of the gaps" argument".

This assertion continues to be made and I'm trying to understand it. I know
many "god of the gaps" criticisms aren't stated well and aren't valid as has
been discussed in this thread. But I'm still having difficulty with the heart
of this claim. It seems to me that the above assertion can be tested in the
following way. If the assertion is true, then the ID argument would remain
intact even if all gaps were to be hypothetically closed. In this case, it means
 that the ID argument would remain valid even if all the mutations and
variations occurring in the course of evolution were some day determined to be
within the probabilistic expectations of the laws of nature. That is, if none of
the steps of the evolutionary process, nor the composite collection of them,
meets the criteria of Dembski's explanatory filter, does the ID argument
hold? What does the ID argument look like and how does it play out in such an
environment of no gaps?

It may well be that ID is a "God of the gaps" argument and the gaps may be
valid and the argument may be valid. But I'd like to understand the real nature
 of the argument.
-------------
 
Allan replies:
 
Randy, you may or may not have understood Timaeus correctly, but I think you
may have missed the point about what is meant by those of us who accuse the
popular ID movement of promoting the "God of the Gaps." This issue is NOT
primarily about the effect of gaps, or lack thereof, on "the ID argument." It
IS about the effect of gaps, or lack thereof, on belief in God.
 
Most fundamentally, the "God of the Gaps" fallacy is the assumption
(contrary to good Christian theology that affirms God's sovereignty over nature) that
lack of gaps entails lack of God. The consequence of this assumption is
that "gaps" (preferably scientifically detectable) become theologically
necessary in order to preserve the viability of faith. When people say that the ID
movement embraces "God of the Gaps" theology, we are (or at least I am)
talking about that attitude (exemplified by Phil Johnson, the Discovery Institute,
Expelled, and probably 95% of the promotion of ID in churches) that the truth
of theism depends on the ID people being right about the "gaps" they think
they see.
 
I think we can get some insight from your hypothetical scenario about gaps
getting filled, but with a different following question. The question would
be what the response of the ID person would be to a finding that the natural
world and its physical history appeared to be gap-free:
1) Give up and become an atheist because the basis for faith had disappeared
OR 2) Say, "Oh, so that's how God did it."
Sometimes Timeaus seemed to be disavowing the God-of-the-Gaps fallacy,
seeming to agree that it was wrong to make scientifically detectable "gaps" in
natural history a theological necessity. But at other times he seemed to draw a
God-of-the-Gaps line in the sand by insisting that orthodox faith required
God to have worked in some "direct" ways in creating life. Several of us
challenged him on this point, but as I recall he never really dealt with it.
 
[As an aside, I see parallels in recent postings by James Patterson, who
said a couple of times something like "The question is how much God is
involved." with regard to distinguishing TE and ID (or RTB) positions. I would submit
that this is not the question at all -- that those of us who might fall
under the TE label see God every bit as "involved" as he does. The question is
HOW God has been involved in natural history, the degree to which God worked
via his sovereignty over nature as opposed to more "direct" means. I think
the mistake that some make is to assume that for God to work via his tools in
nature doesn't really "count" as God's work, that God is more "involved" if
God does something "directly."]
 
So to return to Timaeus' assertion:
"ID isn't a "God of the gaps" argument".
I would say the correct phrasing is that "ID is NOT NECESSARILY a God of the
gaps argument". There are some (Mike Gene, for example) who pursue these
ideas as interesting questions, possibly with apologetic value, but not as the
last stand where theism rises or falls. Unfortunately, it seems the
responsible voices are a small minority -- most often "on the ground" ID is the
movement that is seeking to show that "Christianity isn't false after all because
[biological] evolution isn't true after all" which is a classic example of
the "God of the Gaps" error. As I have said before, much of my negative
feelings about "ID" are due to the way *most* of the movement advocates this error,
or at best does nothing to disavow it.
 
Allan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
"Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cat"
**************Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot
5 Travel Deals!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212416248x1200771803/aol?redir=http://travel.aol.com/discount-travel?ncid=emlcntustrav00000001)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Nov 2 18:07:27 2008