Is There Any Real Difference Between ID and God of the Gaps?

[rookiebatman]

I've been watching debates about origins, and the more I hear creationists argue against evolution, the more I feel like there is no meaningful difference between Intelligent Design and God of the Gaps. When creationists say they have evidence in favor of creationism, what they really mean is things that evolution can't explain. Their arguments are basically just, "this, this and this does conflict with evolution, but does not conflict with creation." They're really just saying that evolution doesn't have answers for everything, and offering that as positive evidence for creationism. But just because we don't have the answers now doesn't mean we never will. I was watching a debate from 1994 where the creationist pointed out that there weren't any examples of mutations causing information to be gained, but there are properly-cited examples of that on TalkOrigins.org from the years and decades after he said that. But if everybody had just been satisfied that God was the final answer, they never would have looked for any other answers, and thus never would've found that real data which was observable and knowable.

The way I interpret the oft-repeated quote that "we cannot allow a divine foot in the door" (often quoted as proof that evolutionists are closed-minded and dogmatic) is that science can't be "solved" by just saying "God did it," because once we accept that as the answer, we will stop looking for answers, even though the real answers might very well be out there for the finding. We'll never be able to observe the moment that life began, but there are a lot of other things that can be observed and tested, which we can only do if we humbly accept that we don't have all the answers (and excusing everything we don't know by saying "God did it" is claiming to know all the answers). I submit that the only "evidence" in favor of creation is really just offering examples of the widely-accepted fact that evolution doesn't have all the answers yet. And that's just God of the Gaps.

So, to put that into question/debate form, can creationists (or proponents of Intelligent Design, if you prefer) explain how supposed evidence in favor of creation/ID is anything more than just pointing out something that evolutionary theory does not have an explanation for yet?

If you can't draw any distinction, then why do you think, with all the things we've learned over the years in science, that now is a good time to just stop trying to get a constantly better understanding of things and just accept that God is the only possible answer for every single thing that we don't satisfactorily understand at this moment right now?

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 157 by Box Whatbox]

I just listened to a talk by Miller in which he debunks the false hypothesis of irreducible complexity using the example of flagellum. Simpler examples (with the same result) are Miller's and McDonald's analyses of the mousetrap argument.

[Bust Nak]

They are both True Dichotomies.

Incorrect. There are alternatives other than Nature or God, it could be any number of other intelligent agents for example.

They've been pointed out to me, eh? Yes, I'm sorry.... for "Nature" (Randomness) to be guided it would need to Prescient and Intelligent and have "Intent".

Sure, what's that got to do with what I said? Are you under the impression that I was suggesting that nature was guided?

I'm not signing up for that....no matter "the number" that have pointed it out.

That's only because you seem to have misrepreasented what it is that we are pointing out. No one is trying to convince you that 'nature' is 'guided.' What we are saying is the opposite of 'designed' is not 'random.'

Randomness is the Antithesis of Design....just as "Unguided" is the Antithesis of "Guided".

Why do you keep insisting on equating undesigned with random?

A simpler system that has some of the same parts as another system doesn't suggest that the more complex system isn't irreducibly complex. If a system minus one part can perform a similar function, that would be evidence.

But a simpler system that has some of the same parts as another system does suggest that the more complex system can be built up iteratively, step by step.

A Unicycle and a Bike are made from similar materials...but it takes Intelligence to re-engineer the Unicycle into a Bike... or vice versa, for that matter.
(SEE: Bike, Roulette Wheel for ground squirrels. Shish Kabobs

Don't know why you want to keep bringing roulette wheel or Shish Kabobs up, you are conceeding that the parts do function individually.

[Enoch2021]

You only have 2 choices as to "How" we are here: Random Chance (Nature) or Intelligent Design (GOD). The Laws of Physics, Chemistry/Biochemistry, Information; and the tenets of Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, and Common Sense Rule Nature out...Laughingly so.

Except your so called "ruling nature out" are fallacious arguments from incredulity. Which is what we've been pointing out all these time. Every attempt at ruling nature out takes the form of "you don't know how X work naturally, therefore it isn't nature" Well, that, quotes and appeals to ridicule.

If you summarily rule one of the choices out.... where does it leave you?
Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction--- two things that are contradictory can't be responsible the same time (or do you disagree?). This is not a False Dichotomy (Bifurcation Fallacy) because there is no THIRD CHOICE.
Granted nature and non-nature is a not false dichotomy. Random chance and intelligent design however, is a false dichotomy.

Now if I summarily refute Randomness the choice MUST BE ID. YOU MAY THEN conjure thousands of possibilities under ID; however, it has ZERO to do with the tenets of first postulate.


Do you have any more options? Please list: 3rd, 4th, 5th....?


Easy enough, an alternatives to spontaneous generation and a primary act of supernatural creation is the iterative nature process commonly labelled "abiogenesis."

Yes, I used the Quote to show evolution is a Religion....

Oh? Quotes can do that? Here is a quote "Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense." - Chapman Cohen. I have shown that belief in God is incompatible with science and common sense, or have I?

Well, ya see sir....DNA, The Genetic CODE----Software, displays Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and De-CODING Schemes. It's chalk full of "INFORMATION", the sine qua non of life.
INFORMATION when traced back to it's source, only ever ever ever reveals INTELLIGENT AGENCY, without Exception.

False by counter example: I can give you any number of source of information other than intelligent agency, such as fractors.

This is quite easy to understand; Let's use a Bicycle: You have the frame, handle bars, handle grips, seat, mirror, 2 wheels, chain, peddles, flag. What Irreducible Complexity is speaking to is there are certain parts of the system that must be present/complete and "functioning" to make a Bicycle a "functioning" Bicycle. With our parts above, which are absolutely necessary? Frame, Handle Bars, both Wheels, Chain, Peddles. These are absolutely necessary; Ergo...the system is Irreducibly Complex

If that's how you define irreducibly complexity then evolution is perfectly capable of producing irreducibly complexity. The kind of complexity that evolution cannot produce, are complexities where there is no way to produce in a iterative process, where each stage is functional - wheels, chains and so on on a bike, can each be functional individually, just not as a bike.

Which is what we've been pointing out all these time. Except your so called "ruling nature out" are fallacious arguments from incredulity. Which is what we've been pointing out all these time.

Well it's not enough to "TELL" me...how about "Showing" me; Start Here....

1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!

2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....?

Do you have any more options? Please list: 3rd, 4th, 5th....?

Easy enough, an alternatives to spontaneous generation and a primary act of supernatural creation is the iterative nature process commonly labelled "abiogenesis."

Abiogenesis is by definition a "Natural" process. How is it a different option than 1. Nature or 2. Intelligent Design. ??

Well, ya see sir....DNA, The Genetic CODE----Software, displays Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and De-CODING Schemes. It's chalk full of "INFORMATION", the sine qua non of life.
INFORMATION when traced back to it's source, only ever ever ever reveals INTELLIGENT AGENCY, without Exception.


False by counter example: I can give you any number of source of information other than intelligent agency, such as fractors.

What are fractors? Or do you mean "fractals". Please show Fractals displaying algorithmic cybernetic CODING and de-CODING schemes? And The INFORMATION/SOFTWARE/MESSAGE it's sending.....?

Which is what we've been pointing out all these time. Except your so called "ruling nature out" are fallacious arguments from incredulity.

They are not anywhere near fallacious ....we DO KNOW what produces INFORMATION and it's only ever ever ever sourced from Intelligent Agency, Without Exception. So your charge is not only Baseless, it's Erroneous.

ps, I just posted on Irreducible Complexity.


regards

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 168 by Enoch2021]

You obviously do not understand Behe's hypothesis. He maintains that:

"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution."

"An irreducibly complex structure is defined as ". . . a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

Miller and McDonald destroy Behe's mousetrap example and Miller clearly shows how the argument with respect to the flagellum is similar claptrap.

[Box Whatbox]

Both of you examples fall under "Nature" Category (1. Rocks; 2. Hydrogen, Oxygen, Stars, ect)

Would that be Probabilistic nature, or Deterministic nature? Or are these two indistinguishable in your mind?

And you're "Common Elements produced in stars" and the whole "Standard Model"...is Hogwash (because it's based on Pseudo-Science "big bang"). But it's OT, and I don't feel like getting into the subject right now.

Not big bang, just fission. Look it up.

A rock sits on a gravelly hillside, in a land where it rains sometimes.
Eventually the rock will move downhill. Supernatural Design? Unnecessary.

Where'd you get the rock...and stars?

regards

You just said you 'didn't want to get into' the origins of the material universe. Can I take it that (for you) the question of a/biogenesis simply asks whether, given the starting conditions on earth, life could have developed independent of any designer?
Which is it to be, Enoch? Shall we look at the conditions on this planet immediately prior to the development of life, and examine that for signs of a necessary designer, (without enquiring into how these conditions arose) or shall we 'get into' the evidence for the development of our solar system?
Hint: Celestial Mechanics, Pierre-Simone Laplace is a good place to start.
Your choice.

[Enoch2021]

They are both True Dichotomies.

Incorrect. There are alternatives other than Nature or God, it could be any number of other intelligent agents for example.

They've been pointed out to me, eh? Yes, I'm sorry.... for "Nature" (Randomness) to be guided it would need to Prescient and Intelligent and have "Intent".

Sure, what's that got to do with what I said? Are you under the impression that I was suggesting that nature was guided?

I'm not signing up for that....no matter "the number" that have pointed it out.

That's only because you seem to have misrepreasented what it is that we are pointing out. No one is trying to convince you that 'nature' is 'guided.' What we are saying is the opposite of 'designed' is not 'random.'

Randomness is the Antithesis of Design....just as "Unguided" is the Antithesis of "Guided".

Why do you keep insisting on equating undesigned with random?

Incorrect. There are alternatives other than Nature or God, it could be any number of other intelligent agents for example.

It's Correct, as I explained previously (SEE: Bolded part below)...

You only have 2 choices as to "How" we are here: Random Chance (Nature) or Intelligent Design (GOD). The Laws of Physics, Chemistry/Biochemistry, Information; and the tenets of Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, and Common Sense Rule Nature out...Laughingly so. If you summarily rule one of the choices out.... where does it leave you?
Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction--- two things that are contradictory can't be responsible the same time (or do you disagree?). This is not a False Dichotomy (Bifurcation Fallacy) because there is no THIRD CHOICE. Now if I summarily refute Randomness the choice MUST BE ID. YOU MAY THEN conjure thousands of possibilities under ID; however, it has ZERO to do with the tenets of first postulate.

Sure, what's that got to do with what I said? Are you under the impression that I was suggesting that nature was guided?

Yes.

That's only because you seem to have misrepreasented what it is that we are pointing out. No one is trying to convince you that 'nature' is 'guided.' What we are saying is the opposite of 'designed' is not 'random.'

Not intentionally. Randomness is the Opposite of Design, it's Prima Facie.

Granted "Natural Law" is not Random...but Natural Law can not Create or Build Functional Specific Complexity or Functional Sequence Complexity.

Why do you keep insisting on equating undesigned with random?

Better stated: Randomness is the Antithesis of Design.

Random (Antonyms): conscious, arranged, organized, planned, systematic, thoughtful, willful. <------all Hallmarks of Design (Intelligence)

regards

[Bust Nak]

Well it's not enough to "TELL" me...how about "Showing" me; Start Here....

Don't change the topic, it doesn't matter whether I can show you or not, that can wait. You drew the conclusion that nature can be ruled out from the premise that we don't know how nature could generate life unguided. By challenging me to explain it, you are once again demostrating that yours is an arguments from incredulity - "you don't know how nature could do it, therefore nature didn't."

1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.

Is it impossible? Ironic thing for you to say right after claiming it's not enough to tell.

2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....?

I addressed that already. I summerised it as trail and error, remember? I am still waiting for your response.

Abiogenesis is by definition a "Natural" process. How is it a different option than 1. Nature or 2. Intelligent Design. ??

It isn't different to nature. It is however different option to 1. spontaneous generation and 2. an act of supernatural creation.

What are fractors? Or do you mean "fractals".

Yes. I did mean fractals.

Please show Fractals displaying algorithmic cybernetic CODING and de-CODING schemes?

No can do. Fractals are not a cypher, or necessarily cybernetic for that matter.

And The INFORMATION/SOFTWARE/MESSAGE it's sending.....?

The fractal itself is information. Color, position and so on.

They are not anywhere near fallacious ....we DO KNOW what produces INFORMATION and it's only ever ever ever sourced from Intelligent Agency, Without Exception.

We don't know that at all, in fact, the opposite is true, we know that nature produces information without intelligent agency all the time. Radioactive decay is another example.

[H.sapiens]

Well it's not enough to "TELL" me...how about "Showing" me; Start Here....

1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!

Your argument here is specious. It assumes things that are not stipulated and that are not in evidence ... that present day, approximately STP conditions obtained (which is clearly not the case) and that abiogensis was a sudden occurrence of "life" fully formed (a similarly unlikely occurrence).

[Enoch2021]

[Replying to post 168 by Enoch2021]

You obviously do not understand Behe's hypothesis. He maintains that:

"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution."

"An irreducibly complex structure is defined as ". . . a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

Miller and McDonald destroy Behe's mousetrap example and Miller clearly shows how the argument with respect to the flagellum is similar claptrap.

You obviously do not understand Behe's hypothesis.

It's not "His" hypothesis and.....

"An irreducibly complex structure is defined as ". . . a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

Yes, that sums it up. What is it I don't understand "Specifically"....?

Miller and McDonald destroy Behe's mousetrap example and Miller clearly shows how the argument with respect to the flagellum is similar claptrap.

They don't, Look closely...it's a clumsy argument. And I just took Miller's argument (Flagellum) to the Woodshed. Try the Clotting Cascade.


I'll be out the rest of the evening, so I'll try and catch up on posts tomorrow, maybe.

regards

[Bust Nak]

You only have 2 choices as to "How" we are here: Random Chance (Nature) or Intelligent Design (GOD).

I just give you alternatives: any number of other intelligent agents, like aliens or other deities.

Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction--- two things that are contradictory can't be responsible the same time (or do you disagree?).

No, I do not disagree with that at all.

This is not a False Dichotomy (Bifurcation Fallacy) because there is no THIRD CHOICE.

This is what I disagree with. There are lots more choices.

Now if I summarily refute Randomness the choice MUST BE ID.

That's kinda moot since there are other choice beside randomness and ID.

YOU MAY THEN conjure thousands of possibilities under ID;

Well there you go, thanks for conceeding there ARE thousands of possibilities under ID. So much for your "it's correct."

however, it has ZERO to do with the tenets of first postulate.

Expect the tenets of first postulate was "randomness or God."

Yes.

Well I didn't imply anything of the sort, let alone state it.

Not intentionally. Randomness is the Opposite of Design, it's Prima Facie.

Granted "Natural Law" is not Random...

Well there you go, so much for your "prima facie..."

but Natural Law can not Create or Build Functional Specific Complexity or Functional Sequence Complexity.

False by counter example: Again I point out the existence of evolutionary algorithms.

Better stated: Randomness is the Antithesis of Design.

Random (Antonyms): conscious, arranged, organized, planned, systematic, thoughtful, willful. <------all Hallmarks of Design (Intelligence)

Now that I don't disagree with. You do see the difference between 1) "design->not random" and 2) "not designed->random" though right? 1 does not imply 2.