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
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
