Comment on The God of the Gaps by Sean Pitman.

@pauluc:

What the writers you cite above realize is that in honestly following the scientific evidence there is 3 things that they must conclude.

1] There is an anthropic principle; the Goldilocks principle the world is just right for life and that this is a highly unlikely scenario and would require a multitude of universes not evident for this to be by chance.

Right… also given that the multiverse theory isn’t scientific since it isn’t testable. It also undermines the basis of science itself since it has the power, like God, to explain anything and everything, however seemingly unlikely (like Arnold Schwarzenegger winner the California Lottery 10 times in a row without cheating – must have been living in the right universe).

2] The evidence for evolution of the complexity of life once established on earth is irrefutable. Darwinian mechanisms may or may not be sufficient but natural mechanisms are most likely

That is certainly their belief, but the assumption that mindless natural mechanisms are “most likely” the explanation is also not a scientific conclusion. This conclusion is a philosophical conclusion not supported by testable or potentially falsifiable science. In fact, as with the evidence of ID behind the anthropic universe or the origin of the first living thing, the evidence for the non-evolvability of high levels of functional complexity by any known non-intelligent force of nature, strongly suggests the need to invoke deliberate intelligent design on at least some level of intelligence.

3] Intelligence and mind are natural consequences of a highly complex brain that arose by these natural mechanisms.

Again, that is certainly their belief, but this belief in the creative potential of mindless natural mechanisms is, yet again, not based on testable science.

This is the scientific position. Whether God was working through these processes is a philosophical not a scientific question.
You enamoured as you are with statistical inference twist these arguments about to invoke some grand theory of intelligent design when none is required.

The scientific position is that intelligent design is detectable if the phenomenon in question is well beyond the potential of any as yet known non-intelligent force of nature while being within at least realm of human level intelligence and creative potential. That’s the only scientific position that is entertained by these men on the topic of origins (to include the origin of the universe, life, and the diverse complexity of life). The assumption that even if RM/NS isn’t capable of doing the job for certain features of living things that some other mindless force of nature likely did it is not science. It’s as simple as that. This “theory” is not testable in a potentially falsifiable manner. It therefore produces no useful predictive value. And, therefore, isn’t scientific.

In terms of my 3 points of science you I think would agree with the anthropic principle
On point 2 all I have read from you says you dispute the evidence and argue that most scientists are honestly deceived. You do not agree on dating methods ice cores varves volcanic ocean ridges, continental drift fossil evidences and geological columns, genomic sequences and phylogenies, history of insertions of repetitive elements; all evidences that most scientists including those above would accept in good faith as likely true.

Dating assumptions or notions about the age of life on Earth have nothing to do with the notion that the creative mechanism was some mindless mechanism. Nothing. There are many intelligent design advocates who believe in long ages for life existing and evolving on this planet. They just don’t believe that the evolution was completely undirected by mindless forces of nature.

Also, nested hierarchical patterns in the genetics of living things say absolutely nothing about the likely mechanism involved in producing the high levels of functional complexity with which they are associated.

Again, your assumption that the mechanism was most likely a mindless mechanism, that intelligence was most likely not required, is not based on any kind of testable scientific theory. It isn’t science. It is just a philosophical assumption on your part and on the part of most mainstream scientists.

On point 3 your have this idea of some overarching intelligence that is God like but may or may not be natural that is responsible for anything that is more complex than inanimate objects.

Not quite. Intelligence is not required to explain the evolution of low levels of novel informational complexity within living things – complexity which is beyond that of inanimate objects. However, intelligence is required to explain levels of functional complexity within biosystems that goes beyond low levels of functional biological complexity – i.e., beyond the level that requires a minimum of 1000 specifically arranged amino acid residues.

No one, not even you, knows of any viable natural mechanism that can explain the evolution of biological complexity beyond this level without invoking intelligent design on at least the human level of intelligence.

With such a gulf between what you will accept of reality it is no surprising there is little common ground between your views and conventional hypothesis driven science.

My views are testable in a potentially falsifiable manner. Unfortunately, yours are not…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Recent Comments by Sean Pitman