I know Big Foot created everything in 1 day unlike those who think their made up gods did it in 6 days. My creator is real....I know it so quit making lies up about how your creator is true. Science can't do anything without Big Foot saying it's ok for them to figure this out or that out, he lets them discovery things in this world...he is the great one!!
*facepalm.... "god of the gaps" was a scientific habit such as with Newton...,who NEVER mentioned god in their work until they reached the limit of what could be learned in their time and were humbled... therefore placing god in that gap.... Over time many mysteries are solved and the gaps and excuses for his existence and are fading. So if you believe in god for "what you DO know"... i guess you dont know very much
Being committed to the idea that everything can be explained under purely naturalistic processes BEFORE establishing the fact that everything did actually happen naturally is circular reasoning, and since no one can actually know that everything did actually happen naturally, no one can argue that way without committing an error in reasoning. In order to remain intellectually honest, you must stay open and go where the evidence leads. That is the first step.
Scientists admitting that they don't know something is not denying the existence of a god. It's also interesting to note that two hundred years ago, apologists would have been demanding scientists to show how the complexity of life could have come into being. We now know that it was through the process of evolution. Had nothing to do with god.
It can't be denied that science has made great discoveries precisely because it has shunned supernatural explanations to problems. That this has been true in the past, does not guarantee it will hold true as science explores ever deeper mysteries. The laws of nature operate in the material universe without any evident supernatural intervention. However, as science is now starting to look into why, or how, the laws themselves are sustained, I believe science will run into things that are very different from their previous experience. They will no longer be dealing with typical unanswered questions, they will have questions whose only answers will be supernatural. These will not be "god of the gaps" situations, rather these will be gaps that only God can fill. Scientists will become theists, but since the way of salvation is narrow, few will become Christians.
All explanations try to fill in gaps in knowledge. For example, I could accuse atheists of using "evolution of the gaps." That would be a rather lame dismissal, however.
The reason that many Christians deny these sorts of arguments is because, even if it were determined that God designed the entity in question, one still wonders how God did it, which is the initial question science set out to answer. It also seems as though once we figure out how God did it, we have a working naturalistic explanation with no need for inference to a creator.
it also seems as though once we figure out how boeing creates aeroplanes, we have a working naturalistic explanation with no need for inference to a creator! :D -wait, that makes no sense either. the word "naturalistic": i do not think it means what you think it means. also it'd be interesting to -naturally- explain how a Creator God creates nature itself out of actual nothing. so maybe the statement "one still wonders..." isn't really always a rule when a Christian claims God created something. -though it doesn't keep one from wondering how that creation works, or what its history is. you're right in implying Christ-following scientists have to ask questions, since that is after all what a scientist does. but this video is about the straw-man argument that passes intelligent design off as someone saying "idk how, so some sort of god did it", which isn't remotely accurate. christians don't come to the knowledge of who God is and what He's done via this supposed "God-of-the-gaps" notion, either. rather, i believe the pattern to materialistically unanswered questions (self-replicating cell screams designed just as loud as the passenger comfort features of a 787 don't seem to have spontaneously generated from a series of mathematically miraculous accidents) will remain good evidence, but not sole proof that God is. Actually, Jesus makes me believe in God; ever hear of him? i don't remember his coming as an answer to a specific question about physical nature, but he sure answered all the questions the scientific method can't even ask. so i reject your assertion that "the reason Christians...", because it completely ignores everything stated in the video about the ACTUAL position Christian ID scientists, or true believers(like myself) in general, hold. you should watch the above video, though..it's not half bad. especially around 2:00 and 2:30 on, where he talks a bit about what i started this post with.
That's like saying once we figure out how a designer designed the Eiffel Tower, we will have a working naturalistic explanation with no need for inference to a designer.
Randall Beck Both airplanes (the example given by googlesux) and the Eiffel Tower are quite different from, say, the digestive system in that they are totally and visibly dependent upon the designer in order to function. If an airplane or a building incurs any sort of structural problem, it requires outside intervention in order to function again. If I eat a bad meal, my digestive system has trouble processing it, but ultimately repairs and returns to normalcy on its own. Thus, these examples are not helpful.
Ridiculous argument. You are never going to find out how God did/does anything. Science is not capable of reproducing or explaining one-time supernatural events.
MrAtoz456 So you'd literally posit that the answer is "God did it" and leave the question alone? If I've understood you correctly, does the existence of an answer as to how such things work invalidate God's handiwork? Please explain.
It seems to me that on the issue of creation and evolution we are usually talking past each other. As has been pointed out earlier there are 2 categories of causes. The efficient cause (agent) and the material cause (event). In the example of the Boeing airplane Mr. Boeing would be acknowledged as the efficient cause of Boeing airplanes. The material cause would be aluminum, rubber, etc. that go into making the airplane. So often times when these discussions get going one side talks about the material cause (evolution assuming that's the answer) and the other side talks about God (the efficient cause). If God is the efficient cause then shouldn't there also be a material cause which God uses to accomplish the task? Now, there does seem to be a hole here, at least for the initial event, the creation of the universe, since there is no material or forces, etc to work with, ie. creation ex nihilo. But since that event is God still creating ex nihilo or is he using materials and forces already in existence for all material events that occur? For instance, take the miracle of Jesus turning the water into wine at the wedding in Cana. We all know that molecules of wine and water are different. If you had a video on the molecular level of what was happening what would you see? Would you seen new atoms materializing ex nihilo creating new chemical bonds producing the miracle or would they be scavenged from some other place in the universe. Maybe a nearby vintner discovers that he has water in his vats the next day instead of the juice he harvested. I've never really seen these ideas discussed before but obviously there has to be some kind of physical transition that takes place from the prior state to the post state. I'd love to know your thoughts Greg.
ChatGPT 4: This text discusses the concept of the "God of the gaps" argument in the context of science and intelligent design (ID). It tries to refute claims against ID being merely a placeholder for unexplained phenomena in science. The text makes several claims and employs various logical constructs, some of which have logical fallacies or inaccuracies. ### Factual and Logical Assessment: 1. **God of the Gaps Defined**: - **Claim**: The text argues that invoking God to fill unexplained scientific gaps is criticized as "God of the gaps," which is allegedly a fallacious argument approach both by materialists and some Christian scientists. - **Analysis**: This is an accurate representation of the criticism often leveled against the "God of the gaps" theology. The issue arises when divine intervention is used as a default explanation for anything not currently explained by science. 2. **Science vs. Religion**: - **Claim**: If God is brought into scientific discussions, it is accused of being religion masquerading as science. - **Analysis**: This is generally correct. Mainstream scientific methodology relies on empirical, testable, and falsifiable claims, whereas supernatural explanations inherently lack these qualities, making them unfit for scientific methodologies. 3. **Misrepresentation of Intelligent Design**: - **Claim**: Intelligent design is suggested not as a mere gap-filler for unknown phenomena but based on evidence which suggests design. - **Analysis**: This claim is controversial and widely debated. Critics of ID argue that it starts with a conclusion (design) and works backward to find evidence, which can be seen as a form of confirmation bias. The scientific community largely considers ID to lack empirical rigor and not adhere to the scientific method. 4. **Straw Man Fallacy**: - **Claim**: The accusation that ID uses "God of the gaps" is a straw man fallacy. - **Analysis**: Whether this is a straw man depends on how accurately opponents represent ID's arguments. If opponents simplify ID claims to just filling gaps with God, without acknowledging any nuanced arguments from ID proponents, it could be a straw man fallacy. 5. **Circular Reasoning**: - **Claim**: The text claims that dismissing ID as "God of the gaps" presumes a gap that assumes a materialistic explanation must exist, which is circular reasoning. - **Analysis**: This argument itself is somewhat circular and confusing. The original criticism is not necessarily circular but might be more accurately criticized as presumptive or assuming materialism a priori. 6. **Science of the Gaps**: - **Claim**: Scientists are accused of committing a "science of the gaps" fallacy, hoping science will fill current gaps without justification. - **Analysis**: This is a misunderstanding of scientific optimism and methodology. Science posits hypotheses which are then rigorously tested. The expectation that science will eventually fill gaps is based on historical patterns of scientific advancement, not on unjustified hope. 7. **Materialistic Presumptions**: - **Claim**: Critics presume materialism is correct, which is questioned in the discussion of whether the universe's mechanistic view is adequate. - **Analysis**: This is a significant philosophical and foundational question in the science-religion debate. It is valid to question materialism; however, in scientific contexts, materialism is a working methodology rather than a dogmatic presumption. 8. **Evidence and Conclusions**: - **Claim**: The text encourages following evidence wherever it leads, whether towards materialistic explanations or intelligent design. - **Analysis**: This sounds reasonable but is simplistic. The interpretation of what constitutes evidence for intelligent design vs. materialistic explanations can be highly subjective and influenced by underlying philosophical or theological beliefs. ### Conclusion: The text makes some valid points about the criticisms and challenges faced by the concept of intelligent design within the scientific and broader intellectual community. However, it also contains several logical flaws and mischaracterizations of both scientific methodology and the arguments against ID. The portrayal of scientific and ID methodologies could benefit from a more nuanced understanding of how evidence and hypotheses are treated within the scientific community compared to theological explanations.
You say things like ID are being offered as explanations, but those don't actually _explain_ anything. Hence, God of the Gaps. When people ask you for an explanation of how life arose on the planet, and you say it was created/designed, that still doesn't tell us _how_ it was created/designed. What mechanisms were involved, what energies were used, what the design process was, etc. When scientists admit that there is a gap, they say "we don't know, so let's try to find out." If they are assuming that they'll eventually be able to figure it out, it's because without that assumption there's no point in asking the questions in the first place. As for your objection to materialism, do you have examples of why it should be assumed that there's something more than the material in the first place? I've heard of appeals to the soul, and similar gap-ish arguments about consciousness. But the problem with proposing the supernatural as an explanation is that as soon as we can understand and describe what is considered supernatural, it becomes natural.
Greg, even though there appears a palpably poor history of religions explaining past physical mysteries, a burden any religion will have great difficulty shedding, at least I have learned of the existence of a cool battery holder for one's workbench. Cheers.
3:13 "ID guys have written huge books about why God is a better explanation given the evidence". Care to narrow it down a bit for us? What specifically makes it a 'better' explanation? How do we tell a God-designed thing from a naturally-occurring thing? And more importantly, is your hypothesis falsifiable? The God hypothesis... how could it be proven wrong? 4:10 "scientists are assuming there's a gap and science will fill it". What? They're just admitting that there are things we don't know. The reason this 'god of the gaps' label fits is that you would like to pretend that there are no gaps because the god Yahweh from ancient Hebrew mythology explains away all the difficult questions. "Gap filling without justification by the scientists". What the heck, dude. This is a lot of fast-talking not amounting to much. Scientists have done no such thing. "There's only a gap if you presume a materialist explanation". In other words, if you begin with the god assumption, you never have to acknowledge any gaps, because the god Yahweh from ancient Hebrew mythology explains away all the difficult questions. "I don't think there's a gap, because there's an explanation that fits the evidence". Magic. The god Yahweh from ancient Hebrew mythology magicked the universe into existence by the majesty of his magicalness. That, sir, is not an explanation. It is ignorance masquerading as knowledge. When you posit the existence of a supernatural, omnipotent agent, no matter what you are seeking to explain, your agent will always be able to "fit the evidence". That's the nice thing about supernatural, omnipotent agents. Sure, there's no evidence they exist, but *if they did exist* they would be able to explain everything in need of an explanation. You don't have a god. You have a god concept. You have a concept in your mind of something that, if real, could explain things. That's a world away from having anything resembling a true explanation.
"How do we tell a God-designed thing from a naturally-occurring thing?" Let's begin at the beginning. Nothing comes from nothing so either God has always existed or the universe has always existed ... and it's not the universe. The Big Bang and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics provide the scientific evidence for this conclusion. Obviously, nature didn't have a natural cause if nature didn't exist to cause anything. One needs a lot more than a Big Bang and the 2nd Law to get a life-sustaining universe. One needs finely-tuned natural laws and initial conditions to get a universe with the necessary elements for life. The inference to a natural law giver is quite logical. A third factor from science is information: something that does not derive from natural laws and chemical reactions alone. Ink binds to paper, but that is not enough to explain the origin of the "Origin of Species." The astonishing amount of information contained in the DNA of even the simplest living organism lies beyond all reasonable chance of occurring without extrinsic information. Ironically, the information gap between life and non-life has grown enormously since Darwin's day. Materialists often call upon what might be called a "god of chance" or "god of the dice" ("god of the craps"?) to fill the discontinuities found in the history of life (e.g. the Cambrian explosion). Thus the arrival of the fittest is said to be the result of random variations or unguided mutations. But invoking unpredictable and unrepeatable random events is akin to saying "it just happened" which is no explanation at all, let alone a scientific one.
Art Battson Oh come on. Even my 12 year old grandson can search the web for ID books and research documents that would provide him years of reading and study. Don't use a lazy attitude to elude the issue.
Jim Mumy I'm not understanding what you're trying to say. Who's being lazy here? If you're talking about me, what specifically is lazy? "Intelligent design" isn't a field of scientific research. It's a pseudoscientific hypothesis that some things are so complicated, the only reasonable expectation is God. That's not a testable hypothesis, neither is it falsifiable... which makes it useless as far as science is concerned. But maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
There are two viable explanations. Nothing did it or a being that transcends time and space did it. I can't comprehend nothing creating something therefore the transcending being is a more logical explanation. I didn't have to write a big book to come to the logical conclusion either.
Michael Carlsen How can we know whether a 'transcendent' being is 'viable'? That's not obvious to me. Also, the fact that you can or can't comprehend something doesn't make it logical or likely to be true. And saying 'nothing did it' is confused. It's not that nothing 'did' something. A true dichotomy would be that the universe was designed & created by a personal, intelligent agent or it was not designed & created by such an agent.
The only scientific way we know of intelligence coming into existence is through evolution. why should I assume that a super-intelligence existed before everything else?
Robert James I'm not; I'm saying that all we can see here on Earth is intelligence coming about through evolution. What reason is there to assume intelligence could come into existence without evolution? If you are making the claim that a super-intelligence existed before everything else, it is on you to prove the claim. Where is the evidence for this?
"The only scientific way we know of intelligence coming into existence is through evolution. why should I assume that a super-intelligence existed before everything else? " the only scientific way we KNOW? hold yer horses there. the only way many choose to scientifically -hypothesize- (oddly, only concerning life origins, since even a moron won't hypothesize that my lil lego creation here self-ordered) is utterly materialistic with no outside input. -but that's a far cry from knowing. why assume anything else? well making such assumptions is the false notion this whole video is about. but if i personally do assume a creator, it's because if Jesus truly is God, it's a safe assumption. "What reason is there to assume intelligence could come into existence without evolution? If you are making the claim that a super-intelligence existed before everything else, it is on you to prove the claim..." actually the christian claim is that intelligence always WAS, and never "came into existence". "I'm saying that all we can see here on Earth is intelligence coming about through evolution." well then now, speaking of making claims, there's a heck of a claim to have to prove. :) "Where is the evidence for this?" the answers to your questions are 1: Jesus, and 2 is obvious: that the evidence for a designer is in the designs themselves, if one bothers to actually consider the subjects of ID theory and not just to vaguely reference them. don't bother asking for evidence on on a youtube video that's about the spreading of misinformation concerning the methodology of intelligent design. if you ACTUALLY want to know, find a group of ID scientists or search the internets for such websites. the information IS there and readily available. God bless.
OuterSpaceCyborg God is not made of anything, God is not material, God is spirit, but you seem to supress the truth about your Creator. Don't follow the path of ignorance, repent and come to the Truth.
We aren't claiming God from what we don't know, but what we DO know.
I know Big Foot created everything in 1 day unlike those who think their made up gods did it in 6 days. My creator is real....I know it so quit making lies up about how your creator is true. Science can't do anything without Big Foot saying it's ok for them to figure this out or that out, he lets them discovery things in this world...he is the great one!!
*facepalm.... "god of the gaps" was a scientific habit such as with Newton...,who NEVER mentioned god in their work until they reached the limit of what could be learned in their time and were humbled... therefore placing god in that gap....
Over time many mysteries are solved and the gaps and excuses for his existence and are fading. So if you believe in god for "what you DO know"... i guess you dont know very much
Thanks for the video Greg!
Could not have said that any better myself. Well done.
Being committed to the idea that everything can be explained under purely naturalistic processes BEFORE establishing the fact that everything did actually happen naturally is circular reasoning, and since no one can actually know that everything did actually happen naturally, no one can argue that way without committing an error in reasoning.
In order to remain intellectually honest, you must stay open and go where the evidence leads. That is the first step.
Scientists admitting that they don't know something is not denying the existence of a god.
It's also interesting to note that two hundred years ago, apologists would have been demanding scientists to show how the complexity of life could have come into being. We now know that it was through the process of evolution. Had nothing to do with god.
Oh right.... The "fact" of evolution as the origin of life. Perhaps you should read: www.darwinsdoubt.com/
It can't be denied that science has made great discoveries precisely because it has shunned supernatural explanations to problems. That this has been true in the past, does not guarantee it will hold true as science explores ever deeper mysteries. The laws of nature operate in the material universe without any evident supernatural intervention. However, as science is now starting to look into why, or how, the laws themselves are sustained, I believe science will run into things that are very different from their previous experience. They will no longer be dealing with typical unanswered questions, they will have questions whose only answers will be supernatural. These will not be "god of the gaps" situations, rather these will be gaps that only God can fill. Scientists will become theists, but since the way of salvation is narrow, few will become Christians.
All explanations try to fill in gaps in knowledge. For example, I could accuse atheists of using "evolution of the gaps." That would be a rather lame dismissal, however.
The reason that many Christians deny these sorts of arguments is because, even if it were determined that God designed the entity in question, one still wonders how God did it, which is the initial question science set out to answer. It also seems as though once we figure out how God did it, we have a working naturalistic explanation with no need for inference to a creator.
it also seems as though once we figure out how boeing creates aeroplanes, we have a working naturalistic explanation with no need for inference to a creator! :D -wait, that makes no sense either.
the word "naturalistic": i do not think it means what you think it means.
also it'd be interesting to -naturally- explain how a Creator God creates nature itself out of actual nothing. so maybe the statement "one still wonders..." isn't really always a rule when a Christian claims God created something. -though it doesn't keep one from wondering how that creation works, or what its history is.
you're right in implying Christ-following scientists have to ask questions, since that is after all what a scientist does. but this video is about the straw-man argument that passes intelligent design off as someone saying "idk how, so some sort of god did it", which isn't remotely accurate.
christians don't come to the knowledge of who God is and what He's done via this supposed "God-of-the-gaps" notion, either.
rather, i believe the pattern to materialistically unanswered questions (self-replicating cell screams designed just as loud as the passenger comfort features of a 787 don't seem to have spontaneously generated from a series of mathematically miraculous accidents) will remain good evidence, but not sole proof that God is. Actually, Jesus makes me believe in God; ever hear of him? i don't remember his coming as an answer to a specific question about physical nature, but he sure answered all the questions the scientific method can't even ask.
so i reject your assertion that "the reason Christians...", because it completely ignores everything stated in the video about the ACTUAL position Christian ID scientists, or true believers(like myself) in general, hold.
you should watch the above video, though..it's not half bad. especially around 2:00 and 2:30 on, where he talks a bit about what i started this post with.
That's like saying once we figure out how a designer designed the Eiffel Tower, we will have a working naturalistic explanation with no need for inference to a designer.
Randall Beck
Both airplanes (the example given by googlesux) and the Eiffel Tower are quite different from, say, the digestive system in that they are totally and visibly dependent upon the designer in order to function. If an airplane or a building incurs any sort of structural problem, it requires outside intervention in order to function again. If I eat a bad meal, my digestive system has trouble processing it, but ultimately repairs and returns to normalcy on its own. Thus, these examples are not helpful.
Ridiculous argument. You are never going to find out how God did/does anything. Science is not capable of reproducing or explaining one-time supernatural events.
MrAtoz456
So you'd literally posit that the answer is "God did it" and leave the question alone? If I've understood you correctly, does the existence of an answer as to how such things work invalidate God's handiwork? Please explain.
It seems to me that on the issue of creation and evolution we are usually talking past each other.
As has been pointed out earlier there are 2 categories of causes. The efficient cause (agent) and the material cause (event). In the example of the Boeing airplane Mr. Boeing would be acknowledged as the efficient cause of Boeing airplanes. The material cause would be aluminum, rubber, etc. that go into making the airplane.
So often times when these discussions get going one side talks about the material cause (evolution assuming that's the answer) and the other side talks about God (the efficient cause).
If God is the efficient cause then shouldn't there also be a material cause which God uses to accomplish the task? Now, there does seem to be a hole here, at least for the initial event, the creation of the universe, since there is no material or forces, etc to work with, ie. creation ex nihilo. But since that event is God still creating ex nihilo or is he using materials and forces already in existence for all material events that occur?
For instance, take the miracle of Jesus turning the water into wine at the wedding in Cana. We all know that molecules of wine and water are different. If you had a video on the molecular level of what was happening what would you see? Would you seen new atoms materializing ex nihilo creating new chemical bonds producing the miracle or would they be scavenged from some other place in the universe. Maybe a nearby vintner discovers that he has water in his vats the next day instead of the juice he harvested.
I've never really seen these ideas discussed before but obviously there has to be some kind of physical transition that takes place from the prior state to the post state.
I'd love to know your thoughts Greg.
ChatGPT 4:
This text discusses the concept of the "God of the gaps" argument in the context of science and intelligent design (ID). It tries to refute claims against ID being merely a placeholder for unexplained phenomena in science. The text makes several claims and employs various logical constructs, some of which have logical fallacies or inaccuracies.
### Factual and Logical Assessment:
1. **God of the Gaps Defined**:
- **Claim**: The text argues that invoking God to fill unexplained scientific gaps is criticized as "God of the gaps," which is allegedly a fallacious argument approach both by materialists and some Christian scientists.
- **Analysis**: This is an accurate representation of the criticism often leveled against the "God of the gaps" theology. The issue arises when divine intervention is used as a default explanation for anything not currently explained by science.
2. **Science vs. Religion**:
- **Claim**: If God is brought into scientific discussions, it is accused of being religion masquerading as science.
- **Analysis**: This is generally correct. Mainstream scientific methodology relies on empirical, testable, and falsifiable claims, whereas supernatural explanations inherently lack these qualities, making them unfit for scientific methodologies.
3. **Misrepresentation of Intelligent Design**:
- **Claim**: Intelligent design is suggested not as a mere gap-filler for unknown phenomena but based on evidence which suggests design.
- **Analysis**: This claim is controversial and widely debated. Critics of ID argue that it starts with a conclusion (design) and works backward to find evidence, which can be seen as a form of confirmation bias. The scientific community largely considers ID to lack empirical rigor and not adhere to the scientific method.
4. **Straw Man Fallacy**:
- **Claim**: The accusation that ID uses "God of the gaps" is a straw man fallacy.
- **Analysis**: Whether this is a straw man depends on how accurately opponents represent ID's arguments. If opponents simplify ID claims to just filling gaps with God, without acknowledging any nuanced arguments from ID proponents, it could be a straw man fallacy.
5. **Circular Reasoning**:
- **Claim**: The text claims that dismissing ID as "God of the gaps" presumes a gap that assumes a materialistic explanation must exist, which is circular reasoning.
- **Analysis**: This argument itself is somewhat circular and confusing. The original criticism is not necessarily circular but might be more accurately criticized as presumptive or assuming materialism a priori.
6. **Science of the Gaps**:
- **Claim**: Scientists are accused of committing a "science of the gaps" fallacy, hoping science will fill current gaps without justification.
- **Analysis**: This is a misunderstanding of scientific optimism and methodology. Science posits hypotheses which are then rigorously tested. The expectation that science will eventually fill gaps is based on historical patterns of scientific advancement, not on unjustified hope.
7. **Materialistic Presumptions**:
- **Claim**: Critics presume materialism is correct, which is questioned in the discussion of whether the universe's mechanistic view is adequate.
- **Analysis**: This is a significant philosophical and foundational question in the science-religion debate. It is valid to question materialism; however, in scientific contexts, materialism is a working methodology rather than a dogmatic presumption.
8. **Evidence and Conclusions**:
- **Claim**: The text encourages following evidence wherever it leads, whether towards materialistic explanations or intelligent design.
- **Analysis**: This sounds reasonable but is simplistic. The interpretation of what constitutes evidence for intelligent design vs. materialistic explanations can be highly subjective and influenced by underlying philosophical or theological beliefs.
### Conclusion:
The text makes some valid points about the criticisms and challenges faced by the concept of intelligent design within the scientific and broader intellectual community. However, it also contains several logical flaws and mischaracterizations of both scientific methodology and the arguments against ID. The portrayal of scientific and ID methodologies could benefit from a more nuanced understanding of how evidence and hypotheses are treated within the scientific community compared to theological explanations.
Benny Ocean: What kind of evidence for God being real are you looking for? Or, in other words, what would you accept as legit evidence?
You say things like ID are being offered as explanations, but those don't actually _explain_ anything. Hence, God of the Gaps. When people ask you for an explanation of how life arose on the planet, and you say it was created/designed, that still doesn't tell us _how_ it was created/designed. What mechanisms were involved, what energies were used, what the design process was, etc.
When scientists admit that there is a gap, they say "we don't know, so let's try to find out." If they are assuming that they'll eventually be able to figure it out, it's because without that assumption there's no point in asking the questions in the first place.
As for your objection to materialism, do you have examples of why it should be assumed that there's something more than the material in the first place? I've heard of appeals to the soul, and similar gap-ish arguments about consciousness. But the problem with proposing the supernatural as an explanation is that as soon as we can understand and describe what is considered supernatural, it becomes natural.
Greg, even though there appears a palpably poor history of religions explaining past physical mysteries, a burden any religion will have great difficulty shedding, at least I have learned of the existence of a cool battery holder for one's workbench. Cheers.
HAH ! I saw that battery rack and was totally distracted for a minute
science minus Truth =/= science
3:13 "ID guys have written huge books about why God is a better explanation given the evidence".
Care to narrow it down a bit for us? What specifically makes it a 'better' explanation? How do we tell a God-designed thing from a naturally-occurring thing?
And more importantly, is your hypothesis falsifiable? The God hypothesis... how could it be proven wrong?
4:10 "scientists are assuming there's a gap and science will fill it". What? They're just admitting that there are things we don't know. The reason this 'god of the gaps' label fits is that you would like to pretend that there are no gaps because the god Yahweh from ancient Hebrew mythology explains away all the difficult questions.
"Gap filling without justification by the scientists".
What the heck, dude. This is a lot of fast-talking not amounting to much. Scientists have done no such thing.
"There's only a gap if you presume a materialist explanation".
In other words, if you begin with the god assumption, you never have to acknowledge any gaps, because the god Yahweh from ancient Hebrew mythology explains away all the difficult questions.
"I don't think there's a gap, because there's an explanation that fits the evidence".
Magic. The god Yahweh from ancient Hebrew mythology magicked the universe into existence by the majesty of his magicalness. That, sir, is not an explanation. It is ignorance masquerading as knowledge.
When you posit the existence of a supernatural, omnipotent agent, no matter what you are seeking to explain, your agent will always be able to "fit the evidence". That's the nice thing about supernatural, omnipotent agents. Sure, there's no evidence they exist, but *if they did exist* they would be able to explain everything in need of an explanation.
You don't have a god. You have a god concept. You have a concept in your mind of something that, if real, could explain things. That's a world away from having anything resembling a true explanation.
"How do we tell a God-designed thing from a naturally-occurring thing?"
Let's begin at the beginning. Nothing comes from nothing so either God has always existed or the universe has always existed ... and it's not the universe. The Big Bang and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics provide the scientific evidence for this conclusion. Obviously, nature didn't have a natural cause if nature didn't exist to cause anything.
One needs a lot more than a Big Bang and the 2nd Law to get a life-sustaining universe. One needs finely-tuned natural laws and initial conditions to get a universe with the necessary elements for life. The inference to a natural law giver is quite logical.
A third factor from science is information: something that does not derive from natural laws and chemical reactions alone. Ink binds to paper, but that is not enough to explain the origin of the "Origin of Species." The astonishing amount of information contained in the DNA of even the simplest living organism lies beyond all reasonable chance of occurring without extrinsic information. Ironically, the information gap between life and non-life has grown enormously since Darwin's day.
Materialists often call upon what might be called a "god of chance" or "god of the dice" ("god of the craps"?) to fill the discontinuities found in the history of life (e.g. the Cambrian explosion). Thus the arrival of the fittest is said to be the result of random variations or unguided mutations. But invoking unpredictable and unrepeatable random events is akin to saying "it just happened" which is no explanation at all, let alone a scientific one.
Art Battson Oh come on. Even my 12 year old grandson can search the web for ID books and research documents that would provide him years of reading and study. Don't use a lazy attitude to elude the issue.
Jim Mumy I'm not understanding what you're trying to say. Who's being lazy here? If you're talking about me, what specifically is lazy?
"Intelligent design" isn't a field of scientific research. It's a pseudoscientific hypothesis that some things are so complicated, the only reasonable expectation is God. That's not a testable hypothesis, neither is it falsifiable... which makes it useless as far as science is concerned. But maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
There are two viable explanations. Nothing did it or a being that transcends time and space did it. I can't comprehend nothing creating something therefore the transcending being is a more logical explanation. I didn't have to write a big book to come to the logical conclusion either.
Michael Carlsen How can we know whether a 'transcendent' being is 'viable'? That's not obvious to me. Also, the fact that you can or can't comprehend something doesn't make it logical or likely to be true. And saying 'nothing did it' is confused. It's not that nothing 'did' something. A true dichotomy would be that the universe was designed & created by a personal, intelligent agent or it was not designed & created by such an agent.
The only scientific way we know of intelligence coming into existence is through evolution. why should I assume that a super-intelligence existed before everything else?
Why should you assume a super-intelligence DID NOT exist before everything else?
Robert James I'm not; I'm saying that all we can see here on Earth is intelligence coming about through evolution. What reason is there to assume intelligence could come into existence without evolution? If you are making the claim that a super-intelligence existed before everything else, it is on you to prove the claim. Where is the evidence for this?
"The only scientific way we know of intelligence coming into existence is through evolution. why should I assume that a super-intelligence existed before everything else? "
the only scientific way we KNOW? hold yer horses there. the only way many choose to scientifically -hypothesize- (oddly, only concerning life origins, since even a moron won't hypothesize that my lil lego creation here self-ordered) is utterly materialistic with no outside input. -but that's a far cry from knowing.
why assume anything else? well making such assumptions is the false notion this whole video is about. but if i personally do assume a creator, it's because if Jesus truly is God, it's a safe assumption.
"What reason is there to assume intelligence could come into existence without evolution? If you are making the claim that a super-intelligence existed before everything else, it is on you to prove the claim..."
actually the christian claim is that intelligence always WAS, and never "came into existence".
"I'm saying that all we can see here on Earth is intelligence coming about through evolution."
well then now, speaking of making claims, there's a heck of a claim to have to prove. :)
"Where is the evidence for this?"
the answers to your questions are 1: Jesus, and 2 is obvious: that the evidence for a designer is in the designs themselves, if one bothers to actually consider the subjects of ID theory and not just to vaguely reference them.
don't bother asking for evidence on on a youtube video that's about the spreading of misinformation concerning the methodology of intelligent design. if you ACTUALLY want to know, find a group of ID scientists or search the internets for such websites. the information IS there and readily available. God bless.
googIesux What do you believe your god is made of?
OuterSpaceCyborg God is not made of anything, God is not material, God is spirit, but you seem to supress the truth about your Creator. Don't follow the path of ignorance, repent and come to the Truth.