On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu> wrote:
> Below is Timaeus' reply to Randy Isaac, concerning the "god-of-the-gaps"
> issue. I will reply myself briefly to the final paragraph, where Tim says:
> "No sensible person denies that "God of the gaps" reasoning is a risky way
> of establishing design; but too often this war cry – No God of the gaps! –
> is used simply to avoid considering serious, non-gap-based arguments for
> design
Ted,
Isn't this really just a "Naturalism of the Gaps" argument?
And isn't naturalism of the gaps on the same philosophical foundation that
God of the Gaps would be? If one is a slippery slope would not both be?
>
>
> I don't see this as a fully accurate portrayal of the conversations that I
> have had myself with ID advocates on this issue. I do think that many of
> the specific ID arguments I have encountered in biology employ a "god of the
> gaps" strategy, while avoiding a "god of the gaps" theology (for this
> distinction, see my review of several ID books on my web site).
What I see, and what makes sense to me, is a probablistic argument towards
inferring knowledge. This has nothing per se to do with God. But it is done
in science all the time. Unless a certain circumstance arises: ie, when
'where the math points' allows someone to choose to believe certain
unacceptable things about God. Then probablistic reasoning must be
disallowed for religiously correct reasons. Said another way, the newly
delivered baby must be stomped out lest it present a threat to the
naturalistic high priesthood.
But this says nothing about the validity of the math, and says everything
about the religious prejudices of the one who wants to disallow the use of
math.
> That is, many ID advocates who push the "irreducible complexity" of some
> aspect of biological organisms are indeed arguing that what we don't know
> about how something was formed (that is, our ignorance of the actual process
> that produced it) forces or encourages us to invoke "design" as part of the
> *scientific* explanation; and, nearly all of those who make this argument
> are convinced that the relevant "intelligent designer" is God.
Why is this relevant to anything? If the advocates were atheists would that
affect the math? I think not. If believers in God advocate civil rights,
does civil rights become invalid as a concept. NO! If scientists are
orthodox Jews, is their science bad? NO! Ideas rise and fall on their
merits, not on the religious beliefs of he who holds the idea.
Why is there such difficulty in understanding this?
This seems to only be difficult to understand for those who are against
objectivity.
In their new book, "Origins," the Haarsmas (see chapter 10) aptly summarize
> the situation as they find it (and as I have found it). All too often, ID
> advocates all but claim that design *mu!
>
> st* be detectable in biology, at the level of science itself (ie, as part
> of the scientific explanation), or else the atheists are right and there is
> no God.
Yes, there are those who put God in that tiny box.
And others who don't. Thats why IDT is different than IDM.
You refere only to IDm (or groups of people). They could all be taking
cyanide laced kool-aid but it wouldnt alter IDT one bit.
(This is IMO no more helpful than when a TE claims that design *must not*
> be detectable in the universe, that God would never "show himself" in a
> detectable way.)
How can we know? That is the question! On what could this TE position be
based? To decide the TE must do the very same measurement that the IDer
must make. To decide negatively the TE must make that same measurement.
Otherwise the claim is based on ignorance, or what I would call a 'gap'.
If that is the case why then should government proscribe a position, a
decision on the question, based on there being a gap? Does not that become
tyranny?
If it is left more tentative, then I would say that a "god of the gaps"
> objection is not applicable. But, I rarely encounter it stated quite that
> tentatively.
>
> Especially, it's the point about whether "design" must be made part of the
> scientific explanation itself, where I would dissent.
> I think design inferences--modest ones, not the "knockdown proofs" of the
> old natural theology--can indeed be made *from* science, but I don't see
> them as alternative explanations *within* science. I gather this is id, not
> ID. I just see it as "design," but you have to be clearer about this in the
> current politicized environment.
What of the case where math tells us the difference between windblown
patterns and an artist painting a facsimile of these patterns and then an
art forger attempting to fake the work of the artist? That is a real
example of math used to detect design from intelligence and to actually
identify the intelligence. And it has been disallowed from being called
"design theory". Why disallowed? Because calling it 'id' may lead to
'ID'. It must be squashed while newborn. And so fear and insanity becomes
tyranny. I feel a growing kindred spirit with Tom Paine and John Adams.
Best Regards
David Clounch
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Nov 16 13:24:27 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Nov 16 2008 - 13:24:27 EST