Ironically, when critics make this accusation, they are usually committing a “gaps” fallacy themselves. How so? These very same materialists (1) admit that gaps in the evidence for Darwinian evolution exist, and (2) assume that those gaps can and will be filled by materialist explanations. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be attacking ID for purportedly filling those gaps with “god.” They can’t make a “god of the gaps” accusation without also making a “materialism of the gaps” argument — one that assumes the truth of their own materialistic outlook. – Casey Luskin
Luskin’s basic fallacy there is the assumption that we fill the gap with something. We don’t. Frequently the gap is an invented one reflecting either the dishonesty or the wilful ignorance (are they different?) of the person claiming it, but where the gap genuinely exists it is left as a gap pending more data on which to base a decision. Should Luskin at any point ever come up with a validated piece of scientific data which can only be interpreted as proving that his particular god did it and that no natural explanation is possible, then he will have succeeded in using science to prove his god and can justify sitting it in the gap. Until he has done so, his notion remains not even a theory; not even a hypothesis, but merely a guess with no supporting evidence. This is the basic scientific method. There is no shame in having questions without answers. The dishonesty is in inventing answers and then pretending you have answered the question. Smug confirmatory bias might be deeply satisfying for those not especially bothered about truth, but it is about as far from science as you can get. You can test this for yourself by substituting the words ‘peanut butter sandwich’ for ‘God’ in Luskin’s pretend answers and noting that it makes exactly the same ‘sense’ and conforms to precisely the same ‘logic’. He will still have multiplied entities needlessly and will have made the explanation infinitely more complex because now he has to explain the god – where it came from, how it works, how it did whatever he is claiming it did, etc. He also has to explain why he disregarded all other possible supernatural explanations, how he identified and examined supernatural entities in the first place and how a supernatural entity which, by definition, can’t interact with the natural world… er…. interacted with it but remained supernatural and undetectable. Hence his ‘simple’ or simplistic answer is actually far less satisfactory and infinitely more complex, so infinitely less likely to be correct, than the assumption that the gap can be investigated and eventually filled by science without making any assumptions, or incorporating any preconceived superstitions, no matter how smugly self-satisfied those assumptions might make us fee, or, as is more likely the case, how smugly self-satisfied the ‘answer’ might make the audience feel. The fallacy he is using is our old friend, the Strawman, of course. One is tempted to ask how he knew he needed to, but the likelihood of getting an honest answer to that question probably approaches zero.
Casey Luskin that’s a great point. May Christ give wisdom to all those atheists to understand your greatness. Knowledge with out wisdom is dangerous in these times. So many scientists without wisdom. Sad for them.
Luskin’s basic fallacy there is the assumption that we fill the gap with something.
We don’t.
Frequently the gap is an invented one reflecting either the dishonesty or the wilful ignorance (are they different?) of the person claiming it, but where the gap genuinely exists it is left as a gap pending more data on which to base a decision.
Should Luskin at any point ever come up with a validated piece of scientific data which can only be interpreted as proving that his particular god did it and that no natural explanation is possible, then he will have succeeded in using science to prove his god and can justify sitting it in the gap. Until he has done so, his notion remains not even a theory; not even a hypothesis, but merely a guess with no supporting evidence.
This is the basic scientific method. There is no shame in having questions without answers. The dishonesty is in inventing answers and then pretending you have answered the question. Smug confirmatory bias might be deeply satisfying for those not especially bothered about truth, but it is about as far from science as you can get.
You can test this for yourself by substituting the words ‘peanut butter sandwich’ for ‘God’ in Luskin’s pretend answers and noting that it makes exactly the same ‘sense’ and conforms to precisely the same ‘logic’. He will still have multiplied entities needlessly and will have made the explanation infinitely more complex because now he has to explain the god – where it came from, how it works, how it did whatever he is claiming it did, etc. He also has to explain why he disregarded all other possible supernatural explanations, how he identified and examined supernatural entities in the first place and how a supernatural entity which, by definition, can’t interact with the natural world… er…. interacted with it but remained supernatural and undetectable. Hence his ‘simple’ or simplistic answer is actually far less satisfactory and infinitely more complex, so infinitely less likely to be correct, than the assumption that the gap can be investigated and eventually filled by science without making any assumptions, or incorporating any preconceived superstitions, no matter how smugly self-satisfied those assumptions might make us fee, or, as is more likely the case, how smugly self-satisfied the ‘answer’ might make the audience feel.
The fallacy he is using is our old friend, the Strawman, of course. One is tempted to ask how he knew he needed to, but the likelihood of getting an honest answer to that question probably approaches zero.
Casey Luskin that’s a great point. May Christ give wisdom to all those atheists to understand your greatness. Knowledge with out wisdom is dangerous in these times. So many scientists without wisdom. Sad for them.
ID isn’t even a ‘gaps’ argument. It looks at what science tells us NOW about life and infer design based on what we DO know.