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

Allan,
 I think you and I are in synch. What I am trying to understand, and have asked a number of different ID advocates, is how the ID argument plays out in a non-gap scenario. This is of interest because they have reacted strongly to critiques that ID is a "God of the gaps" type of argument and have criticized those who make this critique as lacking in understanding of ID. They may be right but if so they should be able to show how ID remains a valid argument in the scenario of no gaps.

Randy

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!

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 20:32:36 2008