Comment on The God of the Gaps by Sean Pitman.
@pauluc:
You wrote:
For SETI the hypothesis is that if there is life and intelligence in space then there will be a signature in some output from that source which is similar to those humans as intelligent material beings produce. Seeing a signature of intelligence in this context is fine but do you then assume that any signal is from a supernatural source as you seem to want to do for origins?
I basically agree with this statement – aside from the fact that I would not “assume that any [artifactual/designed] signal is from a supernatural source.” That projection simply isn’t true.
I would also like to re-emphasize that the argument for SETI is two-fold. First, for intelligently designed radio signals to be detected they must be well beyond what known mindless processes produce and they must be within the realm of what at least human-level intelligence can produce. Both elements of the argument are necessary for the scientific detection of ID in certain features of radio signals. In any case, at least you’ve admitted that SETI is based on the scientific ability to detect the need for intelligent design – i.e., that SETI is a form of ID science.
Beyond this, let me say again that the argument here isn’t for a supernatural origin for the intelligence needed to produce the signal. The argument is simply that intelligence from some intelligent source of some kind would obviously be needed to explain certain types of radio signals – especially those containing something like the first 50 terms of the ever popular Fibonacci series (to quote Seth Shostak). Of course, as the level of intelligence required to explain various phenomena increases, eventually it gets to a point where the required intelligence and creative power is so great that we, from our very limited perspective, could not tell the difference between the required intelligence and that of a God or God-like being. The fact may be that the level of intelligence may actually be quite “natural”, even for someone powerful enough and intelligent enough to produce our entire anthropic universe, but there simply would be no way to tell for sure. In fact, the whole concept of “natural” vs. “supernatural” intelligence is a relative concept… relative to the perspective of the observer (you should actually watch the video of my lecture on this topic).
It seems clear to me that virtually all the practicing scientists who would accept the anthropic principle and Fred Hoyles original ideas of “intelligent design” for the universe do not accept a God of the gaps or YEC.
I never said that the scientists I quoted supported young-earth creationism (I’m not even a young-earth creationist. I’m a young-life creationist) or even the need for a God to explain the origin of life on this planet. What I said is that they had come to the conclusion that very high levels of intelligent design were in fact required to explain certain features of the empirical universe in which we live. In fact, for certain features of our universe, there are many scientists who have come to the conclusion that a God, or at least an intelligence not readily distinguishable from a God or God-like being, was most likely responsible. They claim that this conclusion was forced on them by scientific methodologies – not religious faith. And, as already explained, the ID-only hypothesis, while being a form of the God of the Gaps argument (as all scientific hypotheses really are), is a valid scientific theory because it is testable in a potentially falsifiable manner. In comparision, this is unlike the a priori assumptions of methodological naturalists who completely exclude the possibility of any kind of deliberate design, on any level (natural or supernatural intelligence), as being responsible for any feature of living things or even the ultimate origin of living things… before even getting started with scientific investigations. Such original conclusions, before science methodologies are even begun, is not science, but philosophy or a form of empirically-blind religious faith.
It is irrelevant to my main point that these scientists still accept Darwinian evolution for the diversity of life on this planet – of course they do. This fact is well known by anyone at all familiar with this topic. The point is that your basic argument that intelligent design theories are never scientific and cannot be universally applied is mistaken. Your only real beef is over the detection of the “Supernatural”. And, on that point, I agree. The need to invoke the creative powers of a God cannot be proven by science. I agree. The infinite cannot be demonstrated or proven by the finite. However, the need to invoke creative intelligence on various levels, to include very very high levels of intelligence, can be demonstrated by science. This point is really not arguable.
The only real question that remains, then, is if there is a valid naturalistic explanation for living things and their diversity or not? If there is, then intelligent design theory is effectively falsified for all aspects of living things. If not, then intelligent design theories, on at least the naturalistic level of design, can be presented as perfectly valid scientific conclusions…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Animals are actually programmed to adapt beyond low levels of functional complexity. It’s called “Mendelian variation.” However, this form of adaptability is not based on Darwinian style evolution of novel functional elements within the gene pool. This form of adaptability is based on pre-existing pre-programmed information within the gene pool.
It might be nice if novel high level information could simply poof into the gene pool without the need for a designer. However, given the nature of sequence space, this simply isn’t a tenable solution beyond very low levels of functional complexity.
Yes, at low levels of functional complexity Darwinian-style evolution does happen via apparently random mutations and function-based natural selection. There is no apparent need for the direct involvement of intelligent manipulation at such low levels of functional/informational complexity.
Why not? Because, at such low levels of functional complexity the ratio of potentially beneficial sequences vs. non-beneficial sequences in sequence space is high enough to randomly find the next closest sequence via a random search algorithm. It’s like finding a novel 3-letter word in the English language system via random mutations of any 3-letter sequence. The ratio of meaningful vs. meaningless 3-letter words is about 1:18. Given this ratio, the odds of randomly finding a novel 3-letter word is very good – especially for a large population. However, as the minimum size and/or specificity requirements increase linearly, the ratio declines exponentially. For example, the ratio of meaningful 7-letter sequences is around 1 in 250,000.
The very same thing is true of potentially beneficial DNA or protein sequences in sequence space.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Why wouldn’t it be desirable to strive for a certain degree of flexibility of design? Such flexibility would allow for greater stability and resilience when presented with different obstacles in different environments.
Regardless of the motive, however, the evidence is quite clear. There are evident limitations to the level of evolution that living things can realize in a reasonable amount of time… and these limits are at very very low levels of functional complexity.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
It doesn’t matter who you are quoting, you should never argue that the ToE violates the 2LoT. That’s clearly not the case and therefore it only makes you look ignorant when you use this argument and it reduces the credibility of anything else you have to say…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
Science and Methodological Naturalism
Very interesting passage. After all, if scientists are honest with themselves, scientific methodologies are well-able to detect the existence of intelligent design behind various artifacts found in nature. It’s just the personal philosophy of scientists that makes them put living things and the origin of the fine-tuned universe “out of bounds” when it comes to the detection of intelligent design. This conclusion simply isn’t dictated by science itself, but by a philosophical position, a type of religion actually, that strives to block the Divine Foot from getting into the door…
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:
Why is it that creationists are afraid to acknowledge the validity of Darwinism in these settings? I don’t see that these threaten a belief in God in any way whatsoever.
The threat is when you see no limitations to natural mindless mechanisms – where you attribute everything to the creative power of nature instead of to the God of nature.
God has created natural laws that can do some pretty amazing things. However, these natural laws are not infinite in creative potential. Their abilities are finite while only God is truly infinite.
The detection of these limitations allows us to recognize the need for the input of higher-level intelligence and creative power that goes well beyond what nature alone can achieve. It is here that the Signature of God is detectable.
For those who only hold a naturalistic view of the universe, everything is attributed to the mindless laws of nature… so that the Signature of God is obscured. Nothing is left that tells them, “Only God or some God-like intelligent mind could have done this.”
That’s the problem when you do not recognize any specific limitations to the tools that God has created – when you do not recognize the limits of nature and what natural laws can achieve all by themselves.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Bill Sorensen:
Since the fall of Adam, Sean, all babies are born in sin and they are sinners. God created them. Even if it was by way of cooperation of natural law as human beings also participated in the creation process.
God did not create the broken condition of any human baby – neither the physical or moral brokenness of any human being. God is responsible for every good thing, to include the spark or breath of life within each one of us. However, He did not and does not create those things within us that are broken or bad.
“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?'” Matthew 13:27-28
Of course, all humans are indeed born broken and are in a natural state of rebellion against God. However, God is not the one who created this condition nor is God responsible for any baby being born with any kind of defect in character, personality, moral tendency, or physical or genetic abnormality. God did not create anyone with such brokenness. Such were the natural result of rebellion against God and heading the temptations of the “enemy”… the natural result of a separation from God with the inevitable decay in physical, mental, and moral strength.
Of course, the ones who are born broken are not responsible for their broken condition either. However, all of us are morally responsible for choosing to reject the gift of Divine Grace once it is appreciated… and for choosing to go against what we all have been given to know, internally, of moral truth. In other words, we are responsible for rebelling against the Royal Law written on the hearts of all mankind.
This is because God has maintained in us the power to be truly free moral agents in that we maintain the Power to choose, as a gift of God (Genesis 3:15). We can choose to accept or reject the call of the Royal Law, as the Holy Spirit speaks to all of our hearts…
Remember the statement by Mrs. White that God is in no wise responsible for sin in anyone at any time. God is working to fix our broken condition. He did not and does not create our broken condition. Just as He does not cause Babies to be born with painful and lethal genetic defects, such as those that result in childhood leukemia, He does not cause Babies to be born with defects of moral character either. God is only directly responsible for the good, never the evil, of this life.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:
Again, your all-or-nothing approach to the claims of scientists isn’t very scientific. Even the best and most famous of scientists has had numerous hair-brained ideas that were completely off base. This fact does not undermine the good discoveries and inventions that were produced.
Scientific credibility isn’t based on the person making the argument, but upon the merits of the argument itself – the ability of the hypothesis to gain predictive value when tested. That’s it.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Don’t be so obtuse here. We’re not talking about publishing just anything in mainstream journals. I’ve published several articles myself. We’re talking about publishing the conclusion that intelligent design was clearly involved with the origin of various artifactual features of living things on this planet. Try getting a paper that mentions such a conclusion published…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
