God of the gaps and incredulity, a justified refutation of ID arguments?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1983-gaps-god-of-the-gaps-and-incredulitya-justified-refutation-of-id-arguments
1. Consider a scenario where a wallet is empty.
2. After checking the wallet, stating "There is no money in the wallet" is an argument from knowledge.
3. This principle applies to biochemistry. Scientific research in abiogenesis has involved thorough investigation, falsifiable predictions, and attempts to unravel the mystery of life's natural emergence. However, instead of solving the problem, this research has revealed the improbability of life emerging through unguided events and mere chemical reactions. DNA contains complex, specified information - a blueprint instructing the precise sequence of amino acids for protein synthesis. Such information has never been observed to arise by chance, providing evidence for the extreme unlikelihood of chance informing correct protein-making instructions. Scientists often debate whether experimental results should be considered evidence of absence. Some phenomena have been proven not to result from certain causes (like chance).
4. Intelligence possesses foresight and know-how to create purposeful things, work towards specific long-term goals, and create and use codified language for blueprints to build complex machines, production lines, and interconnected factories. It can fine-tune and arrange components to function precisely, and shape parts that interact like lock and key. No non-intelligent mechanism has been observed to achieve these capabilities. Any proposed alternative to intelligence should meet the burden of proof and falsify the claim of intelligent design through empirical testing and falsification.
5. Therefore, the argument for Intelligent Design as the best explanation for origins is grounded in experiments, observation, acquired knowledge, and experience, rather than ignorance.
The "God of the Gaps" objection is commonly misconstrued. Contrary to the popular assumption, belief in God is not a filler for the unknown or unexplained but is a conclusion drawn from substantial positive evidence and logical reasoning. The belief in God is founded on a rich tradition of philosophical and theological reflection, not merely on gaps in scientific knowledge. While science probes the mechanisms of the natural world, philosophy tries to explain these things. God is not just an explanatory hypothesis for natural phenomena, but the source of all existence, the reason why there is something rather than nothing, and why the universe is intelligible. The arguments for God's existence employ legitimate forms of logical deduction, including abductive reasoning or inference to the best explanation. The assertion that God exists is not an appeal to ignorance but a reasoned claim that God’s existence offers the most coherent and comprehensive explanation for the universe and our experience within it. It is also supported by empirical evidence, such as the origin and fine-tuning of the laws of physics, and the universe, The fact that the formation of a concept or plan, as well as its functional implementation, has only been observed to occur by the involvement of a thinking mind with goals, and foresight. In biology, the codified instructional information, which directs the assembly of proteins, which are literally molecular machines, permits a logical, plausible inference that these systems likely didn't emerge solely through random processes, hinting at the possibility of a guiding intelligence. Also, we know only that consciousness originates from conscious parents. These aren’t appeals to the unknown, but assessments of existing experience and evidence, pointing towards a theistic cause of all physical existence. There will always be foundational questions that transcend scientific exploration, such as the query: why is there something rather than nothing? These profound questions, which remain outside the realm of scientific inquiry, find their answers in theistic understanding, providing further rationale for belief in God. Concluding, the belief in God transcends the limitation of the "God of the Gaps" objection, offering a structured, reasoned, and evidence-based foundation for faith, addressing both empirical and metaphysical dimensions of human experience and understanding.
Refuting the "God of the Gaps" Argument
The "God of the Gaps" argument is a theological perspective where gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. However, this approach is often criticized as a logical fallacy. Here’s a structured argument that answers to the "God of the Gaps" objection:
God of the gaps. Really ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9DbWDQb_Ek
We don't insert God in the gaps of knowledge. We insert Him as an explanation of the unravelling unexpected complexity in nature.
When atheists are unable to refute a theistic claim, screaming:" God of the gaps"!! is a great gap filler
Agnostic atheist: I don't know how things originated, but I know it was not your God.
Answer: That's like the coworker asking you how to perform a task. You start showing him and he says: "that's not how it's done."
As science progresses we see that the God-of-the-gaps is actually a creation of the atheists, and the Creator God of the Bible is a God whose existence is increasingly bolstered by science.
Since there is being, being has always been. Creation requires a creator. Design requires a designer, Laws require a lawmaker. Creating mathematics requires a mathematician.
Fine-tuning requires a fine-tuner, Codes require a code-maker. Codified information comes always from the mind. Life only comes from life. Logic comes from logic.
Consciousness comes only from consciousness, Factories require a factory-maker, Objective moral values come from a moral giver.
Where was somebody saying something about God of the gaps??
USING LOGIC AND REASON TO FIND THE BEST EXPLANATION FOR THE EXISTENCE OF LIFE …LEADS LOGICALLY AND REASONABLLY … TO THE CONCLUSION, THAT GOD EXISTS.
When a strong atheist asserts that believers in God never provide evidence for God’s existence because there is none … that assertion needs to be evaluated against the “logically and reasonably” sound evidence that does, in fact, exist. Below are multiple pieces of evidence, that is based on: Common Sense; the Laws of Thermodynamics; the Law of Cause and Effect; Logic; Reason; Historical Documentation; and actual Scientific Discovery.
First, here is the definition of “evidence”.
“evidence” = the available body of facts or information which indicate whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
BE = BEST EXPLANATION
IT IS NOT WHAT WE DON’T KNOW … BUT WHAT WE DO KNOW … SO IT IS NOT AN ASSERTION BASED ON IGNORANCE … BUT ON KNOWLEDGE.
WHAT ARE SOME THINGS THAT LOGICAL, RATIONAL THINKING PEOPLE KNOW IS THE BEST EXPLANATION, THAT REPRESENTS LOGICALLY AND REASONABLLY SUPPORTED EVIDENCE:
We KNOW … “nothing” … canNOT create … “anything” (common sense logic)
We KNOW … the universe is not eternal, from (thermodynamics)
We KNOW … everything that has a beginning … has a cause (law of cause and effect)
We KNOW … therefore, that the universe had a cause. (logical conclusion)
We KNOW … material causes are not personal. (material is impersonal)
We KNOW … humans have personality. (direct observation)
We KNOW BE … the spirit exists as a form of energy (quantum energy experiments - zmescience.com )
We KNOW BE … that spirit, combined with thought from the mind, and environment is the most likely cause of personality. (inductive reasoning)
We KNOW BE … therefore, since life only comes from life; that the spirit exists; that humans have personality … the cause is personal. (by inductive reasoning)
We KNOW … DNA contains a coded information system. (direct observation of sequencing in DNA)
We KNOW … coded information cannot self-assemble by random chance processes. (direct observation)
We KNOW … all known coded information systems come from intelligence. (direct observation)
We KNOW … therefore, BE of coded information in DNA is intelligent. (logical conclusion)
We KNOW … the probability of a protein forming by chance is operationally impossible. (probability analysis – scientists have posited that a probability greater than 1x10^75th power is ‘impossible’.
We KNOW … the probability of symbiotic relationships in nature, is operationally impossible. (probability analysis)
We KNOW … therefore, that Integrated Functional Complexity is not a product of random chance. (probability analysis)
Therefore … WE KNOW … our argument for Intelligent Design is not an Argument from Ignorance, but from knowledge, logic, and reason.
We KNOW that if biological organisms operate by means of a coded information system, then molecules to man evolution by means of random variation acted upon by natural selection, is false. We have known this since “The Sequence Hypothesis” was shown to be true in 1957. (logical deduction)
Therefore, We … have knowledge and evidence that falsifies evolution. (logical deduction)
THEREFORE … WE KNOW THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS. (logical deduction)
THEREFORE … WE CAN INFER THAT THE GOD OF THE BIBLE IS THAT INTELLIGENT DESIGNER BECAUSE THE DESCRIPTION OF HIM FROM THE BIBLE MATCHES THAT WHICH IS NEEDED TO INFER A GOD EXISTS.
FINALLY … WE KNOW THAT IF SOMEONE REFUSES TO ACCEPT THINGS THAT ARE KNOWN AND THAT THERE IS LOGICAL, RATIONAL EVIDENCE FOR … THEN THEY ARE INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST AND THEIR ARGUMENTS AGAINST GOD, ARE WILLFULLY IGNORANT AND IRRELEVANT. (summary conclusion based on deductive and inductive logical reasoning)
SO … BEFORE YOU GO STATING THAT CREATIONISTS DON’T SHOW YOU ANY EVIDENCE AGAIN … YOU NEED TO CHECK YOUR OWN ABILITY TO ACCEPT EVIDENCE AND YOUR ABILITY TO USE AND UNDERSTAND LOGIC AND REASONING AND REAL SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY.
1. WE KNOW universe had a beginning, therefore a cause. That cause was God.
2. WE KNOW the universe obeys laws of physics. Therefore, it needs a lawgiver.
3. WE KNOW the universe is finely tuned for life. Therefore, it requires a fine-tuner.
4. WE KNOW that cells are factories in a literal sense. Factories require a designer.
5. WE KNOW that cells are irreducibly complex. They had to emerge ALL AT ONCE.
6. WE KNOW that cells host genetic and epigenetic codes. Codes come from intelligence.
7. WE KNOW that cells host instructional complex information, which must come from a mind.
8. WE KNOW that cells process information like computers. Computers are always designed.
9. WE KNOW that consciousness and intelligence can only come from consciousness, not matter.
10. WE KNOW that the mind and consciousness are separate from the brain. Dualism is true.
11. WE KNOW that organismal form is explained through codified information and signaling.
12. WE KNOW that objective moral laws are ought to be's. Since they exist, they are from God.
13. WE KNOW that historical facts described in the Bible are confirmed by archaeology.
14. WE KNOW that Jesus Christ is a historical figure, confirmed by extrabiblical texts.
15. WE KNOW that Christ resurrected based on several lines of evidence.
16. WE KNOW that prophecies in the Bible have been fulfilled.
17. WE KNOW that reported after-life experiences confirm there is life after physical death.
"Incredulous" basically means "I don't believe it". Well, why should someone believe a "just so" story about HOW reality came to exist? That is the THING that we are incredulous about - a *certain scenario* ( naturalism, cosmological, chemical, and biological evolution, abiogenesis, and Neo-Darwinism, and that irreducibly complex biological system, coded, instructed or specified complex information, and entire factory complexes composed of myriads of interconnected factories, full of computers and robotic production lines could emerge naturally ) that's only *imagined* about how various amazing abilities of animals and plants happened all by themselves, defying known and reasonable principles of the limited range of chance, physical necessity, mutations, and Natural selection. There are busy little molecular machines that let it untangle, replicate, and build according to plan. A large cadre of researchers continues to make new discoveries on a regular basis. Our mythology is that it explains life, but the system is far, far too complex to occur by accident, and requires that features to support many processes are required, making a path for its evolution very hard to surmise. DNA isn't the secret to life. It's a whole bunch of puzzles we don't have answers for. The proponent of naturalism is "incredulous" that an intelligent creator/designer could exist, beyond and behind our entire space-time continuum, who is our Creator. But there is nothing ridiculous about that - especially if you can't personally examine reality to that depth - how do you know nature is all that exists? What IS ridiculous (IMO) is trying to imagine a *naturalistic origin* of these things. What we need, is giving a *plausible* account of how it came about to be in the first place, and the " No-God hypothesis" simply doesn't cut the cake.
"Incredulous" basically means "I don't believe it". Well, why should someone believe a "just so" story about HOW reality came to exist? The sentiment of incredulity towards the naturalistic origins of life and the universe is a profound perspective, that stems from the perceived improbability of complex biological systems, intricate molecular machinery, and the finely tuned universe spontaneously originating from random processes, devoid of intention and foresight. These concerns echo a profound uncertainty about the naturalistic explanations of reality’s existence, giving rise to questions about the plausibility of scenarios such as abiogenesis and neo-Darwinism. This is underscored by the intricate orchestration within cellular and molecular processes. The bewildering complexity and apparent purposefulness in the biological realm make it challenging to conceive that such systems could emerge by mere chance or through the unguided mechanisms of natural selection and mutations. The vast information contained within DNA and the elaborate molecular machinery within cells necessitate an intelligent source, a purposeful designer who intricately crafted and coordinated these elements. In the merging context with the text about nature not being self-manifesting, this perspective accentuates the conviction that the universe's existence, form, and functionality could not have spontaneously sprung from its own non-existence or chaos. The position stresses the conceptual incoherence of the universe autonomously setting its fine-tuned parameters, orchestrating its order, and birthing life with its labyrinth of molecular complexities and informational systems. The hypothesis of an external, intelligent entity, beyond the boundaries of space and time, emerges as a logical postulation.
As J. Warner Wallace aptly notes, the convergence of improbability, irreducibility, and specificity in the universe and life propels the inference that intelligent design stands as a robust explanation for the origins and intricacies of our world. The questions surrounding the universe and life’s origins are monumental, and while various perspectives offer their insights, the dialogue continues, enriching the exploration of life's profound mystery.
William Dembski: The problem is that nature has too many options and without design couldn’t sort through all those options. The problem is that natural mechanisms are too unspecific to determine any particular outcome. Natural processes could theoretically form a protein, but also compatible with the formation of a plethora of other molecular assemblages, most of which have no biological significance. Nature allows them full freedom of arrangement. Yet it’s precisely that freedom that makes nature unable to account for specified outcomes of small probability. Nature, in this case, rather than being intent on doing only one thing, is open to doing any number of things. Yet when one of those things is a highly improbable specified event, design becomes the more compelling, better inference. Occam's razor also boils down to an argument from ignorance: in the absence of better information, you use a heuristic to accept one hypothesis over the other.
http://www.discovery.org/a/1256
Eliminative inductions argue for the truth of a proposition by arguing that competitors to that proposition are false. Provided the proposition, together with its competitors, form a mutually exclusive and exhaustive class, eliminating all the competitors entails that the proposition is true. Since either there is a God, or not, either one or the other is true. As Sherlock Holmes's famous dictum says: when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however not fully comprehensible, but logically possible, must be the truth. Eliminative inductions, in fact, become deductions.
Theism is true under the impossibility of the contrary. The ability of reasoning is an argument for the existence of God. CS Lewis called it the cardinal difficulty of naturalism. Mindless matter cannot account for rationality and consciousness.
The claim that intelligent design constitutes the best explanation of origins leads is also based on the fact that competing causal hypotheses will not demonstrate the power to produce these effects—just as they may not have done so to this point.
Matter, space, and time cannot create themselves.
The laws of physics cannot create themselves.
Life cannot create itself.
Languages and codes cannot create themselves
Blueprints, instructional complex information, data, and programs cannot create themselves
Information processing and transmission channels can not create themselves
Computers cannot create themselves
Transistors cannot create themselves
Complex machines, factory production lines, factories, and factory parks producing things with purpose cannot create themselves
Consciousness, nor the mind, cannot create itself
Objective moral duties cannot create themselves.
Eliminative inductions argue for the truth of a proposition by arguing that competitors to that proposition are false. Persistent lack of progress on a scientific problem is exactly what one should expect when a causal puzzle has been fundamentally misconceived, or when the toolkit employed in causal explanation is too limited. ( Contrast this with Popperian falsification, where propositions are corroborated to the degree that they successfully withstand attempts to falsify them ) When the available option forms a dichotomy, just to option, A, or not A, they form a mutually exclusive and exhaustive class, eliminating all the competitors entails that the proposition is true. As Sherlock Holmes's famous dictum says: when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. In this case, eliminative inductions, in fact, become deductions.
Claim: Arthur Conan Doyle, the author of Sherlock Holmes, was HIMSELF fooled by Harry Houdini, an illusionist, using the "whatever possibility remains must be true" method. We KNOW the method has massive flaws that CANNOT BE TESTED FOR OR CORRECTED. Conan Doyle was fooled into thinking a doctored image of fairies was real because he could think of no other possibilities, and debunked all the ones he could think of. He thought Houdini was doing real magic because he debunked the possibilities he KNEW of, but didn't know how Houdini was naturalistically doing them, and thus concluded that it was in fact real supernatural magic. He eliminated all the possibilities and was still wrong because he in fact had not eliminated all the possibilities because his knowledge was imperfect.
Response: To refute the argument against eliminative induction using Arthur Conan Doyle's mistaken conclusions about fairies and Houdini, we must first acknowledge the limitations of Doyle's application of this reasoning method, while also distinguishing eliminative induction as a valid scientific tool when used correctly.
1. Doyle's Application of Eliminative Induction Was Flawed
In the cases of Doyle's belief in fairies and Houdini's supposed supernatural powers, Doyle's errors were not a result of eliminative induction itself, but of the limitations of his knowledge and understanding at the time. He eliminated the possibilities he was aware of but failed to consider that his knowledge was incomplete. Therefore, his conclusions were based on insufficient information and overconfidence in his ability to exhaust all possibilities. This highlights that eliminative induction requires a thorough and accurate knowledge base to be effective. When used in situations where the investigator lacks knowledge or overlooks key variables, the method will naturally be prone to errors. The flaw in Doyle's reasoning was not the method itself, but the false assumption that he had indeed considered all possible explanations.
2. The Importance of Knowledge and Methodological Rigor
In science, eliminative induction works within the framework of continuously expanding knowledge and rigorous testing. Scientists use eliminative induction while remaining open to new possibilities and explanations as knowledge grows. It is not about closing the door to inquiry, but about rejecting explanations that have been empirically tested and found insufficient, while remaining open to refining or revising hypotheses as new information emerges. Doyle's mistakes arose from prematurely closing off possibilities rather than the inherent flaws in the method. In modern scientific practice, hypotheses are constantly tested, refined, and updated, ensuring that eliminative induction operates within a dynamic, self-correcting framework. For instance, in physics, when certain forces or particles are proposed, they are tested, rejected, or confirmed through experimentation, and alternative explanations are always being sought.
3. Distinguishing Between Epistemological Limits and Fallacy
The argument that Doyle’s imperfect application of eliminative induction invalidates the method is a form of the “argument from anecdote” fallacy. Just because Doyle used it incorrectly doesn't mean the method is inherently flawed. We don’t discard a tool because it can be misused; rather, we develop best practices for its proper application. In this case, eliminative induction must be applied with a recognition of the limits of current knowledge, alongside continuous openness to new possibilities and evidence.
4. Correct Application of Eliminative Induction in Intelligent Design
In the context of Intelligent Design (ID), eliminative induction is applied by rigorously testing naturalistic mechanisms against observed phenomena. If materialistic explanations fail to account for specific features of biological complexity after extensive testing, ID considers intelligent causation as a more plausible explanation. However, ID proponents acknowledge that this reasoning must be held tentatively and is subject to revision if new naturalistic explanations emerge.
Conclusion
Doyle’s errors stem from an incomplete application of eliminative induction, not from inherent flaws in the method. When applied rigorously and within a context that recognizes the evolving nature of knowledge, eliminative induction remains a powerful and reliable tool for determining the best explanation for complex phenomena.
If there are only two options to account for something, i.e., God and no God, and one of them is negated, then by default the other position is validated.
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1983-gaps-god-of-the-gaps-and-incredulitya-justified-refutation-of-id-arguments
WE KNOW THAT THE GOD OF THE GAPS ARGUMENT IS INVALID. GOD IS AN INFERENCE OF THE BEST EXPLANATION BASED ON EVIDENCE, NOT IGNORANCE.
The argument that God is a gap filler is really boring, a beaten horse ad nauseam. Its invoked in almost every theist-atheist debate when atheists are unable to successfully refute a theist claim. No, God is NOT a gap filler. God is a logical inference based on the evidence observed in the natural world. If a theist would say, ''We don't know what caused 'x', therefore, God.'', it would be indeed a 'God of the gaps' fallacy. What we say, IMHO is: ''Based on current knowledge, an intelligent creative agency is a better explanation than materialistic naturalism." If one is not arguing from ignorance, but rather reasoning from the available evidence to the best explanation, is it not rather ludicrous to accuse them of launching a 'god of the gaps argument'? Randomness is a hugely overplayed idea in modern science, a desperate attempt to fill a shrinking corner for materialist reductionism, just as the ‘God of the Gaps' is derided by said materialists as the alleged last resort of Intelligent Design proponents.
Claim: Your argument is based on ignorance, gaps, and incredulity.
Reply:
1. if there is no money in the wallet
2. It's an argument of knowledge to say: There is no money in the wallet after you check.
3. The same happens in biochemistry. Science is doing abiogenesis research, checked, investigated, made falsifiable predictions, and attempts to solve the mystery of life, and investigated if life could have emerged naturally. But rather than solving the problem, the riddle is unraveling how unlikely the emergence of life is by unguided events and merely chemical reactions. DNA stores specified complex information, which is a blueprint, instructing the precise sequence of amino acids to make proteins. Such information has never been observed to emerge by chance, and therefore, we have evidence that something is extremely unlikely (e.g., that chance could inform the correct instructions to make proteins). Indeed, scientists will often debate whether an experiment's result should be considered evidence of absence. Something has proven not to be the result of X ( as chance, for example )
4. Intelligence can have the foresight and know-how to make things with a purpose, act towards achieving specific distant goals, and knows how to create codified language, and use that language to create blueprints, used to make complex machines, production lines, and interconnected factories. It can finely tune and arrange things to work in a precise fashion. it can shape and form parts that perform tasks by interacting like lock and key. None of all this has been observed to be achieved by any alternative non-intelligent mechanism. if anyone wants to propose an alternative to replace intelligence, it should meet the burden of proof, and falsify the claim of intelligent design based on empirical testing and falsification.
5. Hence, the argument of Intelligent Design as the best explanation of origins is based on experiments and observation, gained knowledge and experience. Not from ignorance.
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1983-gaps-god-of-the-gaps-and-incredulitya-justified-refutation-of-id-arguments
No, Christianity Does Not Teach God Of The Gaps, But Naturalism Does. Here’s Why | IApologia
http://iapologia.com/no-christianity-does-not-teach-god-of-the-gaps-but-naturalism-does-heres-why-iapologia/?fbclid=IwAR2U7i_32MLr0JRbqzKVhqFLaM24BrIR-Bip5UuSAizl8c_tFfCADuDZwj0
"Incredulous" basically means "I don't believe it". Well, why should someone believe a "just so" story about HOW consciousness, the mind, and the ability to speak and to use language and logic came to exist? That is the THING that I are incredulous about - a *certain scenario* ( naturalism, cosmological, chemical, and biological evolution, abiogenesis, and Neo-Darwinism could emerge naturally and produce the ability to be conscious, perceive, think, judge, and have memory. To reason and having thoughts. Having the power of imagination, recognition, and appreciation, resulting in attitudes and actions. Signals . ) that's only *imagined* about how the brain and firing neurons produced consciousness all by itself, defying known and reasonable principles that each thing is identical to itself. The proponent of naturalism is "incredulous" that an intelligent creator/designer could exist, beyond and behind our entire space-time continuum, who is the superintellect at the bottom of reality. But there is nothing ridiculous about that - especially if you can't personally examine reality to that depth - how do you know nature is all that exists? What IS ridiculous (IMO) is trying to imagine a *naturalistic origin* of the mind. What we need, is giving a *plausible* account of how it came about to be in the first place, and the " No-God hypothesis" simply doesn't cut the cake.
Fine-tuning of the universe
"Incredulous" basically means "I don't believe it". Well, why should someone believe a "just so" story of the amazing capabilities of lucky accidents HOW the universe was finely adjusted to permit a life-permitting universe? That is the THING that i am incredulous about - a *certain scenario* ( natural, unguided lucky accidents precisely adjusted to an unimaginable extreme all laws of physics and cosmological parameters ) that's only *imagined* about how the amazing ability of lucky chaotic accidents defying known and reasonable principles of the limited range of chance, and physical necessity. There are a large number of constants that must be precisely adjusted. Codata lists about 360 different constants, which must precisely be tuned.
Fundamental Physical Constants --- Complete Listing 2018 CODATA adjustment
https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/Table/allascii.txt?fbclid=IwAR1wllIggtvjUltZUyrNeLQO0c67keXqybFrDjwKZ5NFtuIW_bwm6YBf1RU
But the problem extends further, as John Gribbin and Martin Rees explain:
If we modify the value of one of the fundamental constants, something invariably goes wrong, leading to a universe that is inhospitable to life as we know it. When we adjust a second constant in an attempt to fix the problem(s), the result, generally, is to create three new problems for everyone that we “solve.” The conditions in our universe really do seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like ourselves, and perhaps even for any form of organic chemistry.
Changes in the relative strengths of gravity and electromagnetism affect not only cosmological processes but also galaxies, stars, and planets. The strong and weak nuclear forces determine the composition of the universe and, thus, the properties of galaxies, stars, and planets. As a result, we ultimately can’t divorce the chemistry of life from planetary geophysics or stellar astrophysics. Although we have only scratched the surface, it should be clear that
there are many examples of “cosmic-scale” fine-tuning in chemistry, particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology. Most published discussions of such fine-tuning are limited to the requirements for life, but cosmic finetuning
extends well beyond mere habitability.
A large cadre of researchers continues to make new discoveries of new parameters that have to be just right, at a regular basis. The materialistic mythology is that unguided random events explain why the universe operates based on mathematical principles and is finely adjusted to permit life on planet earth, but the system is far, far too complex to occur by accident, and requires that features to support many processes are required, making a path for its cosmic evolution very hard to surmise. Fine-tuning is the secret to a life-permitting universe. It's a whole bunch of puzzles we don't have answers for. The proponent of naturalism is "incredulous" that an intelligent creator/designer could exist, beyond and behind our entire space-time continuum, who is our Creator. But there is nothing ridiculous about that - especially if you can't personally examine reality to that depth - how do you know nature is all that exists? What IS ridiculous (IMO) is trying to imagine a *naturalistic origin* of this unimaginable precision. What we need, is giving a *plausible* account of how it came about to be in the first place, and the " No-God hypothesis" simply doesn't cut the cake.
While theists hear the claim that inferring God is a gaps argument in almost every debate, are atheists not themselves actually guilty of using it?
We don't know:
- if the universe is eternal, there might be multiverses
- how the Big bang started, maybe virtual particles
- why the universe is finely tuned - maybe bubble universes
- how life started, but the Urey Miller experiment showed that amino acids can emerge in the lab, and what science not yet knows, one day it will find out - and it won't be a God
- how exactly evolution works to produce biodiversity, but its a theory, and there is consensus in science, therefore it must be true.
- how the brain can produce thoughts and conscience, but we don't know of a mind being able to exist outside the brain, therefore, monism must be true.
min. 45:04 - God of the gaps arguments
Common atheist fallacies: exposed !!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK99BsNc2Ko&t=3054s
Is the inference of design an argument from ignorance & incredulity?
1. You check and find no money in the wallet
2. It is an argument from knowledge, not from ignorance, to say: There is no money in the wallet
3. If we observe that unguided, natural, non-intelligent mechanisms are too unspecific to bring up the effect observed in molecular biology, namely instructional blueprints to build molecular machines and whole cell-factory complexes, it is not an inference based on ignorance to say: Chance is not a compelling explanation for the phenomena observed in the molecular world, but based on our routine experience that only intelligence can make blueprints, machines and factories.
4. Nor is it an argument from incredulity. The contrary would be credulous. I have not enough faith to believe that random unguided events can bring forward what is seen in the biochemical world. The odds are far too big to account for it. Intelligent Design is the only rational inference and the best explanation.
In the case of worldviews, we do have a neat ordering of competitors. There are basically just two. One with a creator God, and one without. And we CAN knock down naturalism with a few straightforward and judicious blows.
My comment: But in regards to God, we have. Either there is a God, or there is no God. When the No-God hypothesis makes no sense, we can stick to the God hypothesis, no matter how counter-intuitive or incomprehensible it is.
Concluding a Creator as best explanation of our origins is not an argument based on gaps of knowledge and ignorance, but based on what we do know.
Creation demands a Creator. Life comes only from life. The physical laws require a lawmaker. Design demands a designer. DNA is a storage medium of complex, instructional information. Languages, codes, blueprints, ciphers, software, morse codes etc. can always be traced back to an intelligent source. From absolutely nothing, nothing comes. If there were no creator, there would still be nothing. The universe had a beginning, and requires therefore a cause. The physical universe and its laws are interdependent. There are over 150 fine tune constants of the universe that must be all just right to the extreme. The expansion rate of the Big bang, the cosmological constant, the four fundamental forces, and the earth, are fine-tuned and require a tuner, complex, codified, specified, instructional information stored in the genome and epigenetic codes to make the first living organism, the genetic Code, fine optimal adjustment for allowing additional information within protein-coding sequences, and robust than 1 million alternative possible codes, over a dozen epigenetic codes, an information transmission system, that is the origin of the genetic code itself, encoding, transmission, decoding and translation, the genetic cipher/translation, from digital ( DNA / mRNA ) to analog ( Protein ), the hardware, that is DNA, RNA, amino acids, and carbohydrates for fuel generation, the replication/duplication machinery of the DNA, the signal recognition particle, the tubulin Code for correct direction to the final destination of proteins, irreducible, interdependent molecular machines and biosynthetic and metabolic pathways and molecular production lines in the cell point to an intelligent creator. And so does conscience, free will, morality, human values, logic, speech, the mind, and beauty. There is the evidence in nature, we know how to recognize design, therefore it makes most sense to conclude that the natural world was created. That is not an argument of ignorance, but based on the knowledge, we have adquired until now.
The day when scientists discovered that the universe most probably a beginning, it was doomsday for naturalism. Even more, when unprecedented evidence elucidated the shocking and incredible fact that the universe, from the quantum to the macro scale, was adjusted in the extreme to make life possible on earth.
When it became clear, that DNA stores codified information, as well. When it became clear, that biological Cells are miniaturized factories, the funeral bells for a worldview without God where ringing. And so, when science became slowly to realize that Darwin's idea was a fluke.
Nonetheless, atheists organize marches for humanism and secularism, celebrate their stars, open temples to express their unbelief, name call who defies them and doing nothing else than expressing their blindness and bad will.
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.
This is one of the most used refutations used by proponents of naturalism when confronted with a sound inference of design based on POSITIVE evidence. "I don't understand how something could have come about, therefore God!" or "hey, look at this, it's really complex and I can't see how it could have happened naturally" is not the logic of our arguments. God of the gaps is a comfortable way to try to criticize and reject our point and avoid to address actually the issues raised. Opponents of ID resort to it all the time, even when a robust case is made, with clear and detailed science-based observation, prediction, experiment, and logical inference and conclusion. The evidence for intelligent design has not been shrinking in the last two decades. It’s been growing, while the barriers to explain origins through naturalism have grown. This is obvious in regard to all relevant issues: the origin and fine-tuning of the universe, life, and biodiversity.
Strawman arguments of intelligent design
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2361-strawman-arguments-of-intelligen-design
Observation: Intelligent agents act frequently with an end goal in mind, constructing functional irreducibly complex multipart-machines, and make exquisitely integrated circuits that require a blueprint to build the object. Furthermore, Computers integrate software/hardware and store high levels of instructional complex coded information. In our experience, systems that either a)require or b)store large amounts of specified/instructed complex information such as codes and languages, and which are constructed in an interdependence of hard and software invariably originate from an intelligent source. No exception.
Hypothesis (Prediction): Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns, metabolic pathways similar to electronic circuits, and irreducible structures that perform specific functions -- indicating high levels of Information, irreducible complexity, and interdependence, like hard/software.
Experiment: Experimental investigations of DNA, epigenetic codes, and metabolic circuits indicate that biological molecular machines and factories ( Cells ) are full of information-rich, language-based codes and code/blueprint-based structures. Biologists have performed mutational sensitivity tests in proteins and determined that their amino acid sequences, in order to provide function, require highly instructional complex coded information stored in the Genome. Additionally, it has been found out, that cells require and use various epigenetic codes, namely Splicing Codes, Metabolic Codes, Signal Transduction Codes, Signal Integration Codes Histone Codes, Tubulin Codes, Sugar Codes, and The Glycomic Code. Furthermore, all kind of irreducibly complex molecular machines and biosynthesis performing and metabolic pathways have been found, which could not keep their basic functions without a minimum number of parts and complex intertwined and interdependent structures. That indicates these biological machines and pathways had to emerge fully operational, all at once. A stepwise evolutionary manner is not possible. Furthermore, knockout experiments of all components of the flagellum have shown that the flagellum is irreducibly complex.
Conclusion: Unless someone can falsify the prediction, and point out a non-intelligent source of Information as found in the cell, the high levels of instructional complex coded information, irreducible complex and interdependent molecular systems and complex metabolic circuits and biosynthesis pathways, their origin is best explained by the action of an intelligent agent.
Is ID a "god-of-the-gaps" argument?
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1159
(1) Biochemical complexity / Laws of the Universe. High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures are commonly found. The bacterial flagellum is a prime example. Specified complexity found in the laws of the universe may be another.
Prediction of Design Met? (Conclusion)Yes.
(2) Fossil Record Biological complexity (i.e. new species) tend to appear in the fossil record suddenly and without any similar precursors. The Cambrian explosion is a prime example.
Prediction of Design Met? (Conclusion)Yes.
(3) Distribution of Molecular and Morphological Characteristics Similar parts found in different organisms. Many genes and functional parts not distributed in a manner predicted by ancestry, and are often found in clearly unrelated organisms. The "root" of the tree of life is a prime example.
Prediction of Design Met? (Conclusion)Yes.
(4) DNA Biochemical and Biological Functionality Increased knowledge of genetics has created a strong trend towards functionality for "junk-DNA." Examples include recently discovered functionality in some pseudogenes, microRNAs, introns, LINE and ALU elements. Examples of DNA of unknown function persist, but discovery of function may be expected (or lack of current function still explainable under a design paradigm).
Prediction of Design Met? (Conclusion)Yes.
The proponent of natural mechanisms may use words like "incredulity" to make it seem that we are arguing about these things because we can't believe it. But the main point is that it has never been seen to happen. They are talking about speculation, based on .... guess what .... philosophical dogmatic naturalism. To them, there must be a natural explanation, no matter where the evidence points to.
God of the gaps is a comfortable way to try to criticize and reject an argument and avoid to address actually the issues raised. Opponents of ID resort to it all the time, even when a robust case is made, with clear and detailed science-based observation, prediction, experiment, and logical inference and conclusion. The evidence for intelligent design has not been shrinking in the last two decades. It’s been growing, while the barriers to explain origins through naturalism have grown. This is obvious in regard to all relevant issues: the origin and fine-tuning of the universe, of life, and biodiversity.
A short protein molecule of 150 amino acids, the probability of building a 150 amino acids chain in which all linkages are peptide linkages would be roughly 1 chance in 10^45.
Paul Davies once said;
How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software … ? Nobody knows …… there is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing.
Dembsky : We also know from broad and repeated experience that intelligent agents can and do produce information-rich systems: we have positive experience-based knowledge of a cause that is sufficient to generate new instructing complex information, namely, intelligence. the design inference does not constitute an argument from ignorance. Instead, it constitutes an "inference to the best explanation" based upon our best available knowledge. It asserts the superior explanatory power of a proposed cause based upon its proven—its known—causal adequacy and based upon a lack of demonstrated efficacy among the competing proposed causes. The problem is that nature has too many options and without design couldn’t sort them all out. Natural mechanisms are too unspecific to determine any particular outcome. Mutation and natural selection or luck/chance/probablity could theoretically form a new complex morphological feature like a leg or a limb with the right size and form, and arrange to find out the right body location to grow them , but it could also produce all kinds of other new body forms, and grow and attach them anywhere on the body, most of which have no biological advantage or are most probably deleterious to the organism. Natural mechanisms have no constraints, they could produce any kind of novelty. Its however that kind of freedom that makes it extremely unlikely that mere natural developments provide new specific evolutionary arrangements that are advantageous to the organism. Nature would have to arrange almost an infinite number of trials and errors until getting a new positive arrangement. Since that would become a highly unlikely event, design is a better explanation. This situation becomes even more acentuated when natural selection is not a possible constrained since evolution depends on replication, which did not exist prior dna replication
Today, Darwinists level the same charge against the contemporary theory of intelligent design (ID). They insist that ID is just an argument from ignorance—plugging God into the gaps of our current scientific understanding. Darwinists have made many thoughtful arguments over the years, but this isn’t one of them. The theory of intelligent design holds that many things in nature carry a clear signature of design. The theory isn’t based on what scientists don’t know about nature but on what they do know. It’s built on a host of scientific discoveries in everything from biology to astronomy, and some of them are very recent discoveries.
If you were asked how much change do you have in your pockets. You can put your hand in your pocket, look to see how many coins are there. If there is no loose change, it is NOT an argument from ignorance to state, “Sorry, I don’t have any spare change.” You didn’t guess. You stuck your hands in your pockets and looked, and deduced the quantity to be zero. The same is true with inferences in regard of biology or biochemistry. After the search has taken place, the prediction that biochemical systems are unable to emerge by natural means is confirmed. Hence, there is no argument from ignorance.
In the design revolution, Dembski writes on page 220:
So see that the argument from ignorance objection is not a magic wand for silencing intelligent design, let's begin with a reality check. When is the argument from ignorance objection raised against intelligent design, who exactly is being accused of being ignorant? Its natural to think that the ignorance here is on the part of design theorists, who want to attribute intelligent agency to biological systems. If only those poor design theorists understood biology better, those systems would readily submit to mechanistic explanation. Matter of fact IMHO is, that despite decades of research, the scientific community has been desperately and unsuccessfully tried to discover how such systems could have formed, what mechanism exactly was in charge. Who is ignorant here? The Scientific community as a whole. In fact, its safe to say that the biological community is clueless about the emergence of biological complexity. How so?
Because the material mechanisms to which the biological community looks to explain biological complexity provide no clue for how those systems might realistically have come about. the problem, therefore, is not ignorance or personal incredulity, but global disciplinary failure, and gross theoretical inadequacy of Darwin's theory. James Shapiro, molecular biologist at the University of Chicago, conceded that system that exhibits specified complexity are likely to be designed. Design theorists, in attributing design to systems that exhibit specified complexity (SC), are simply doing what scientists do generally, which is an attempt to formulate a causally adequate explanation for the phenomenon in question. To attribute specified complexity, and thereby design, to a biological system is to engage in an eliminative induction, a form of reasoning, used throughout the sciences.
William Dembski: Eliminative inductions argue for the truth of a proposition by arguing that competitors to that proposition are false. ( Contrast this with Popperian falsification, where propositions are corroborated to the degree that they successfully withstand attempts to falsify them ) Provided the proposition, together with its competitors, form a mutually exclusive and exhaustive class, eliminating all the competitors entails that the proposition is true. As Sherlock Holmes famous dictum says: when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. This is the ideal case, in which eliminative inductions, in fact, become deductions. The problem is that in practice we don't have a neat ordering of competitors that can then all be knocked down with a few straightforward and judicious blows.
If naturalistic explanations of the origin of life are not convincing, why not look somewhere else ?
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1508-will-we-eventually-discover-a-naturalistic-explanation-for-first-life
If a certain line of reasoning is not persuasive or convincing, then why do atheists not change their mind because of it? The more evolution papers are published, the less likely the scenario becomes. Some assertions have even been falsified. We should consider the fact that modern biology may have reached its limits on several subjects of biology. All discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in vague suppositions and guesswork, statements of blind faith, made up scenarios, or in a confession of ignorance. Fact is there remains a huge gulf in our understanding… This lack of understanding is not just ignorance about some technical details; it is a big conceptual gap. The reach of the end of the road is evident in the matter of almost all major questions. The major questions of macro change and abiogenesis are very far from being clearly formulated, even understood, and nowhere near being solved, and for most, there is no solution at all at sight. But proponents of evolution firmly believe, one day a solution will be on sight. Isn't that a prima facie of a " evolution of the gap" argument? We don't know yet, therefore evolution and abiogenesis? That way, the God hypothesis remains out of the equation in the beginning, and out at the end, and never receives a serious and honest consideration. If the scientific evidence does not provide satisfactory explanations through naturalism, why should we not change your minds and look somewhere else?
ID is not a substitute for ignorance. If we don’t know the cause of something that does not mean it was designed. When we make design inferences—and all of us make them every day—we do so on the basis of evidence; the more evidence, the more reliable the design inference.
From Stephen Meyers book Signature in the cell :
In an explanatory context, arguments from ignorance have the form:
Premise One: Cause X cannot produce or explain evidence E. Conclusion: Therefore, cause Y produced or explains E.
Critics of intelligent design claim that the argument for intelligent design takes this form as well. As one of my frequent debating partners, Michael Shermer, likes to argue, "Intelligent design argues that life is too specifically complex (complex structures like DNA) to have evolved by natural forces. Therefore, life must have been created by an
intelligent designer." In short, critics claim that ID proponents argue as follows:
Premise One: Material causes cannot produce or explain specified information.
Conclusion: Therefore, an intelligent cause produced specified biological information.
If proponents of intelligent design were arguing in a preceding manner, they would be guilty of arguing from ignorance. But the argument takes the following form:
Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent biological systems.
Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent systems of all sorts.
Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information and irreducible complexity in the cell, and interdependence of proteins, organelles, and bodyparts, and even of animals and plants, aka moths and flowers, for example.
Or to put it more formally, the case for intelligent design made here has the form:
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1983-gaps-god-of-the-gaps-and-incredulitya-justified-refutation-of-id-arguments
1. Consider a scenario where a wallet is empty.
2. After checking the wallet, stating "There is no money in the wallet" is an argument from knowledge.
3. This principle applies to biochemistry. Scientific research in abiogenesis has involved thorough investigation, falsifiable predictions, and attempts to unravel the mystery of life's natural emergence. However, instead of solving the problem, this research has revealed the improbability of life emerging through unguided events and mere chemical reactions. DNA contains complex, specified information - a blueprint instructing the precise sequence of amino acids for protein synthesis. Such information has never been observed to arise by chance, providing evidence for the extreme unlikelihood of chance informing correct protein-making instructions. Scientists often debate whether experimental results should be considered evidence of absence. Some phenomena have been proven not to result from certain causes (like chance).
4. Intelligence possesses foresight and know-how to create purposeful things, work towards specific long-term goals, and create and use codified language for blueprints to build complex machines, production lines, and interconnected factories. It can fine-tune and arrange components to function precisely, and shape parts that interact like lock and key. No non-intelligent mechanism has been observed to achieve these capabilities. Any proposed alternative to intelligence should meet the burden of proof and falsify the claim of intelligent design through empirical testing and falsification.
5. Therefore, the argument for Intelligent Design as the best explanation for origins is grounded in experiments, observation, acquired knowledge, and experience, rather than ignorance.
The "God of the Gaps" objection is commonly misconstrued. Contrary to the popular assumption, belief in God is not a filler for the unknown or unexplained but is a conclusion drawn from substantial positive evidence and logical reasoning. The belief in God is founded on a rich tradition of philosophical and theological reflection, not merely on gaps in scientific knowledge. While science probes the mechanisms of the natural world, philosophy tries to explain these things. God is not just an explanatory hypothesis for natural phenomena, but the source of all existence, the reason why there is something rather than nothing, and why the universe is intelligible. The arguments for God's existence employ legitimate forms of logical deduction, including abductive reasoning or inference to the best explanation. The assertion that God exists is not an appeal to ignorance but a reasoned claim that God’s existence offers the most coherent and comprehensive explanation for the universe and our experience within it. It is also supported by empirical evidence, such as the origin and fine-tuning of the laws of physics, and the universe, The fact that the formation of a concept or plan, as well as its functional implementation, has only been observed to occur by the involvement of a thinking mind with goals, and foresight. In biology, the codified instructional information, which directs the assembly of proteins, which are literally molecular machines, permits a logical, plausible inference that these systems likely didn't emerge solely through random processes, hinting at the possibility of a guiding intelligence. Also, we know only that consciousness originates from conscious parents. These aren’t appeals to the unknown, but assessments of existing experience and evidence, pointing towards a theistic cause of all physical existence. There will always be foundational questions that transcend scientific exploration, such as the query: why is there something rather than nothing? These profound questions, which remain outside the realm of scientific inquiry, find their answers in theistic understanding, providing further rationale for belief in God. Concluding, the belief in God transcends the limitation of the "God of the Gaps" objection, offering a structured, reasoned, and evidence-based foundation for faith, addressing both empirical and metaphysical dimensions of human experience and understanding.
Refuting the "God of the Gaps" Argument
The "God of the Gaps" argument is a theological perspective where gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. However, this approach is often criticized as a logical fallacy. Here’s a structured argument that answers to the "God of the Gaps" objection:
God of the gaps. Really ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9DbWDQb_Ek
We don't insert God in the gaps of knowledge. We insert Him as an explanation of the unravelling unexpected complexity in nature.
When atheists are unable to refute a theistic claim, screaming:" God of the gaps"!! is a great gap filler
Agnostic atheist: I don't know how things originated, but I know it was not your God.
Answer: That's like the coworker asking you how to perform a task. You start showing him and he says: "that's not how it's done."
As science progresses we see that the God-of-the-gaps is actually a creation of the atheists, and the Creator God of the Bible is a God whose existence is increasingly bolstered by science.
Since there is being, being has always been. Creation requires a creator. Design requires a designer, Laws require a lawmaker. Creating mathematics requires a mathematician.
Fine-tuning requires a fine-tuner, Codes require a code-maker. Codified information comes always from the mind. Life only comes from life. Logic comes from logic.
Consciousness comes only from consciousness, Factories require a factory-maker, Objective moral values come from a moral giver.
Where was somebody saying something about God of the gaps??
USING LOGIC AND REASON TO FIND THE BEST EXPLANATION FOR THE EXISTENCE OF LIFE …LEADS LOGICALLY AND REASONABLLY … TO THE CONCLUSION, THAT GOD EXISTS.
When a strong atheist asserts that believers in God never provide evidence for God’s existence because there is none … that assertion needs to be evaluated against the “logically and reasonably” sound evidence that does, in fact, exist. Below are multiple pieces of evidence, that is based on: Common Sense; the Laws of Thermodynamics; the Law of Cause and Effect; Logic; Reason; Historical Documentation; and actual Scientific Discovery.
First, here is the definition of “evidence”.
“evidence” = the available body of facts or information which indicate whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
BE = BEST EXPLANATION
IT IS NOT WHAT WE DON’T KNOW … BUT WHAT WE DO KNOW … SO IT IS NOT AN ASSERTION BASED ON IGNORANCE … BUT ON KNOWLEDGE.
WHAT ARE SOME THINGS THAT LOGICAL, RATIONAL THINKING PEOPLE KNOW IS THE BEST EXPLANATION, THAT REPRESENTS LOGICALLY AND REASONABLLY SUPPORTED EVIDENCE:
We KNOW … “nothing” … canNOT create … “anything” (common sense logic)
We KNOW … the universe is not eternal, from (thermodynamics)
We KNOW … everything that has a beginning … has a cause (law of cause and effect)
We KNOW … therefore, that the universe had a cause. (logical conclusion)
We KNOW … material causes are not personal. (material is impersonal)
We KNOW … humans have personality. (direct observation)
We KNOW BE … the spirit exists as a form of energy (quantum energy experiments - zmescience.com )
We KNOW BE … that spirit, combined with thought from the mind, and environment is the most likely cause of personality. (inductive reasoning)
We KNOW BE … therefore, since life only comes from life; that the spirit exists; that humans have personality … the cause is personal. (by inductive reasoning)
We KNOW … DNA contains a coded information system. (direct observation of sequencing in DNA)
We KNOW … coded information cannot self-assemble by random chance processes. (direct observation)
We KNOW … all known coded information systems come from intelligence. (direct observation)
We KNOW … therefore, BE of coded information in DNA is intelligent. (logical conclusion)
We KNOW … the probability of a protein forming by chance is operationally impossible. (probability analysis – scientists have posited that a probability greater than 1x10^75th power is ‘impossible’.
We KNOW … the probability of symbiotic relationships in nature, is operationally impossible. (probability analysis)
We KNOW … therefore, that Integrated Functional Complexity is not a product of random chance. (probability analysis)
Therefore … WE KNOW … our argument for Intelligent Design is not an Argument from Ignorance, but from knowledge, logic, and reason.
We KNOW that if biological organisms operate by means of a coded information system, then molecules to man evolution by means of random variation acted upon by natural selection, is false. We have known this since “The Sequence Hypothesis” was shown to be true in 1957. (logical deduction)
Therefore, We … have knowledge and evidence that falsifies evolution. (logical deduction)
THEREFORE … WE KNOW THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS. (logical deduction)
THEREFORE … WE CAN INFER THAT THE GOD OF THE BIBLE IS THAT INTELLIGENT DESIGNER BECAUSE THE DESCRIPTION OF HIM FROM THE BIBLE MATCHES THAT WHICH IS NEEDED TO INFER A GOD EXISTS.
FINALLY … WE KNOW THAT IF SOMEONE REFUSES TO ACCEPT THINGS THAT ARE KNOWN AND THAT THERE IS LOGICAL, RATIONAL EVIDENCE FOR … THEN THEY ARE INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST AND THEIR ARGUMENTS AGAINST GOD, ARE WILLFULLY IGNORANT AND IRRELEVANT. (summary conclusion based on deductive and inductive logical reasoning)
SO … BEFORE YOU GO STATING THAT CREATIONISTS DON’T SHOW YOU ANY EVIDENCE AGAIN … YOU NEED TO CHECK YOUR OWN ABILITY TO ACCEPT EVIDENCE AND YOUR ABILITY TO USE AND UNDERSTAND LOGIC AND REASONING AND REAL SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY.
1. WE KNOW universe had a beginning, therefore a cause. That cause was God.
2. WE KNOW the universe obeys laws of physics. Therefore, it needs a lawgiver.
3. WE KNOW the universe is finely tuned for life. Therefore, it requires a fine-tuner.
4. WE KNOW that cells are factories in a literal sense. Factories require a designer.
5. WE KNOW that cells are irreducibly complex. They had to emerge ALL AT ONCE.
6. WE KNOW that cells host genetic and epigenetic codes. Codes come from intelligence.
7. WE KNOW that cells host instructional complex information, which must come from a mind.
8. WE KNOW that cells process information like computers. Computers are always designed.
9. WE KNOW that consciousness and intelligence can only come from consciousness, not matter.
10. WE KNOW that the mind and consciousness are separate from the brain. Dualism is true.
11. WE KNOW that organismal form is explained through codified information and signaling.
12. WE KNOW that objective moral laws are ought to be's. Since they exist, they are from God.
13. WE KNOW that historical facts described in the Bible are confirmed by archaeology.
14. WE KNOW that Jesus Christ is a historical figure, confirmed by extrabiblical texts.
15. WE KNOW that Christ resurrected based on several lines of evidence.
16. WE KNOW that prophecies in the Bible have been fulfilled.
17. WE KNOW that reported after-life experiences confirm there is life after physical death.
"Incredulous" basically means "I don't believe it". Well, why should someone believe a "just so" story about HOW reality came to exist? That is the THING that we are incredulous about - a *certain scenario* ( naturalism, cosmological, chemical, and biological evolution, abiogenesis, and Neo-Darwinism, and that irreducibly complex biological system, coded, instructed or specified complex information, and entire factory complexes composed of myriads of interconnected factories, full of computers and robotic production lines could emerge naturally ) that's only *imagined* about how various amazing abilities of animals and plants happened all by themselves, defying known and reasonable principles of the limited range of chance, physical necessity, mutations, and Natural selection. There are busy little molecular machines that let it untangle, replicate, and build according to plan. A large cadre of researchers continues to make new discoveries on a regular basis. Our mythology is that it explains life, but the system is far, far too complex to occur by accident, and requires that features to support many processes are required, making a path for its evolution very hard to surmise. DNA isn't the secret to life. It's a whole bunch of puzzles we don't have answers for. The proponent of naturalism is "incredulous" that an intelligent creator/designer could exist, beyond and behind our entire space-time continuum, who is our Creator. But there is nothing ridiculous about that - especially if you can't personally examine reality to that depth - how do you know nature is all that exists? What IS ridiculous (IMO) is trying to imagine a *naturalistic origin* of these things. What we need, is giving a *plausible* account of how it came about to be in the first place, and the " No-God hypothesis" simply doesn't cut the cake.
"Incredulous" basically means "I don't believe it". Well, why should someone believe a "just so" story about HOW reality came to exist? The sentiment of incredulity towards the naturalistic origins of life and the universe is a profound perspective, that stems from the perceived improbability of complex biological systems, intricate molecular machinery, and the finely tuned universe spontaneously originating from random processes, devoid of intention and foresight. These concerns echo a profound uncertainty about the naturalistic explanations of reality’s existence, giving rise to questions about the plausibility of scenarios such as abiogenesis and neo-Darwinism. This is underscored by the intricate orchestration within cellular and molecular processes. The bewildering complexity and apparent purposefulness in the biological realm make it challenging to conceive that such systems could emerge by mere chance or through the unguided mechanisms of natural selection and mutations. The vast information contained within DNA and the elaborate molecular machinery within cells necessitate an intelligent source, a purposeful designer who intricately crafted and coordinated these elements. In the merging context with the text about nature not being self-manifesting, this perspective accentuates the conviction that the universe's existence, form, and functionality could not have spontaneously sprung from its own non-existence or chaos. The position stresses the conceptual incoherence of the universe autonomously setting its fine-tuned parameters, orchestrating its order, and birthing life with its labyrinth of molecular complexities and informational systems. The hypothesis of an external, intelligent entity, beyond the boundaries of space and time, emerges as a logical postulation.
As J. Warner Wallace aptly notes, the convergence of improbability, irreducibility, and specificity in the universe and life propels the inference that intelligent design stands as a robust explanation for the origins and intricacies of our world. The questions surrounding the universe and life’s origins are monumental, and while various perspectives offer their insights, the dialogue continues, enriching the exploration of life's profound mystery.
William Dembski: The problem is that nature has too many options and without design couldn’t sort through all those options. The problem is that natural mechanisms are too unspecific to determine any particular outcome. Natural processes could theoretically form a protein, but also compatible with the formation of a plethora of other molecular assemblages, most of which have no biological significance. Nature allows them full freedom of arrangement. Yet it’s precisely that freedom that makes nature unable to account for specified outcomes of small probability. Nature, in this case, rather than being intent on doing only one thing, is open to doing any number of things. Yet when one of those things is a highly improbable specified event, design becomes the more compelling, better inference. Occam's razor also boils down to an argument from ignorance: in the absence of better information, you use a heuristic to accept one hypothesis over the other.
http://www.discovery.org/a/1256
Eliminative inductions argue for the truth of a proposition by arguing that competitors to that proposition are false. Provided the proposition, together with its competitors, form a mutually exclusive and exhaustive class, eliminating all the competitors entails that the proposition is true. Since either there is a God, or not, either one or the other is true. As Sherlock Holmes's famous dictum says: when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however not fully comprehensible, but logically possible, must be the truth. Eliminative inductions, in fact, become deductions.
Theism is true under the impossibility of the contrary. The ability of reasoning is an argument for the existence of God. CS Lewis called it the cardinal difficulty of naturalism. Mindless matter cannot account for rationality and consciousness.
The claim that intelligent design constitutes the best explanation of origins leads is also based on the fact that competing causal hypotheses will not demonstrate the power to produce these effects—just as they may not have done so to this point.
Matter, space, and time cannot create themselves.
The laws of physics cannot create themselves.
Life cannot create itself.
Languages and codes cannot create themselves
Blueprints, instructional complex information, data, and programs cannot create themselves
Information processing and transmission channels can not create themselves
Computers cannot create themselves
Transistors cannot create themselves
Complex machines, factory production lines, factories, and factory parks producing things with purpose cannot create themselves
Consciousness, nor the mind, cannot create itself
Objective moral duties cannot create themselves.
Eliminative inductions argue for the truth of a proposition by arguing that competitors to that proposition are false. Persistent lack of progress on a scientific problem is exactly what one should expect when a causal puzzle has been fundamentally misconceived, or when the toolkit employed in causal explanation is too limited. ( Contrast this with Popperian falsification, where propositions are corroborated to the degree that they successfully withstand attempts to falsify them ) When the available option forms a dichotomy, just to option, A, or not A, they form a mutually exclusive and exhaustive class, eliminating all the competitors entails that the proposition is true. As Sherlock Holmes's famous dictum says: when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. In this case, eliminative inductions, in fact, become deductions.
Claim: Arthur Conan Doyle, the author of Sherlock Holmes, was HIMSELF fooled by Harry Houdini, an illusionist, using the "whatever possibility remains must be true" method. We KNOW the method has massive flaws that CANNOT BE TESTED FOR OR CORRECTED. Conan Doyle was fooled into thinking a doctored image of fairies was real because he could think of no other possibilities, and debunked all the ones he could think of. He thought Houdini was doing real magic because he debunked the possibilities he KNEW of, but didn't know how Houdini was naturalistically doing them, and thus concluded that it was in fact real supernatural magic. He eliminated all the possibilities and was still wrong because he in fact had not eliminated all the possibilities because his knowledge was imperfect.
Response: To refute the argument against eliminative induction using Arthur Conan Doyle's mistaken conclusions about fairies and Houdini, we must first acknowledge the limitations of Doyle's application of this reasoning method, while also distinguishing eliminative induction as a valid scientific tool when used correctly.
1. Doyle's Application of Eliminative Induction Was Flawed
In the cases of Doyle's belief in fairies and Houdini's supposed supernatural powers, Doyle's errors were not a result of eliminative induction itself, but of the limitations of his knowledge and understanding at the time. He eliminated the possibilities he was aware of but failed to consider that his knowledge was incomplete. Therefore, his conclusions were based on insufficient information and overconfidence in his ability to exhaust all possibilities. This highlights that eliminative induction requires a thorough and accurate knowledge base to be effective. When used in situations where the investigator lacks knowledge or overlooks key variables, the method will naturally be prone to errors. The flaw in Doyle's reasoning was not the method itself, but the false assumption that he had indeed considered all possible explanations.
2. The Importance of Knowledge and Methodological Rigor
In science, eliminative induction works within the framework of continuously expanding knowledge and rigorous testing. Scientists use eliminative induction while remaining open to new possibilities and explanations as knowledge grows. It is not about closing the door to inquiry, but about rejecting explanations that have been empirically tested and found insufficient, while remaining open to refining or revising hypotheses as new information emerges. Doyle's mistakes arose from prematurely closing off possibilities rather than the inherent flaws in the method. In modern scientific practice, hypotheses are constantly tested, refined, and updated, ensuring that eliminative induction operates within a dynamic, self-correcting framework. For instance, in physics, when certain forces or particles are proposed, they are tested, rejected, or confirmed through experimentation, and alternative explanations are always being sought.
3. Distinguishing Between Epistemological Limits and Fallacy
The argument that Doyle’s imperfect application of eliminative induction invalidates the method is a form of the “argument from anecdote” fallacy. Just because Doyle used it incorrectly doesn't mean the method is inherently flawed. We don’t discard a tool because it can be misused; rather, we develop best practices for its proper application. In this case, eliminative induction must be applied with a recognition of the limits of current knowledge, alongside continuous openness to new possibilities and evidence.
4. Correct Application of Eliminative Induction in Intelligent Design
In the context of Intelligent Design (ID), eliminative induction is applied by rigorously testing naturalistic mechanisms against observed phenomena. If materialistic explanations fail to account for specific features of biological complexity after extensive testing, ID considers intelligent causation as a more plausible explanation. However, ID proponents acknowledge that this reasoning must be held tentatively and is subject to revision if new naturalistic explanations emerge.
Conclusion
Doyle’s errors stem from an incomplete application of eliminative induction, not from inherent flaws in the method. When applied rigorously and within a context that recognizes the evolving nature of knowledge, eliminative induction remains a powerful and reliable tool for determining the best explanation for complex phenomena.
If there are only two options to account for something, i.e., God and no God, and one of them is negated, then by default the other position is validated.
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1983-gaps-god-of-the-gaps-and-incredulitya-justified-refutation-of-id-arguments
WE KNOW THAT THE GOD OF THE GAPS ARGUMENT IS INVALID. GOD IS AN INFERENCE OF THE BEST EXPLANATION BASED ON EVIDENCE, NOT IGNORANCE.
The argument that God is a gap filler is really boring, a beaten horse ad nauseam. Its invoked in almost every theist-atheist debate when atheists are unable to successfully refute a theist claim. No, God is NOT a gap filler. God is a logical inference based on the evidence observed in the natural world. If a theist would say, ''We don't know what caused 'x', therefore, God.'', it would be indeed a 'God of the gaps' fallacy. What we say, IMHO is: ''Based on current knowledge, an intelligent creative agency is a better explanation than materialistic naturalism." If one is not arguing from ignorance, but rather reasoning from the available evidence to the best explanation, is it not rather ludicrous to accuse them of launching a 'god of the gaps argument'? Randomness is a hugely overplayed idea in modern science, a desperate attempt to fill a shrinking corner for materialist reductionism, just as the ‘God of the Gaps' is derided by said materialists as the alleged last resort of Intelligent Design proponents.
Claim: Your argument is based on ignorance, gaps, and incredulity.
Reply:
1. if there is no money in the wallet
2. It's an argument of knowledge to say: There is no money in the wallet after you check.
3. The same happens in biochemistry. Science is doing abiogenesis research, checked, investigated, made falsifiable predictions, and attempts to solve the mystery of life, and investigated if life could have emerged naturally. But rather than solving the problem, the riddle is unraveling how unlikely the emergence of life is by unguided events and merely chemical reactions. DNA stores specified complex information, which is a blueprint, instructing the precise sequence of amino acids to make proteins. Such information has never been observed to emerge by chance, and therefore, we have evidence that something is extremely unlikely (e.g., that chance could inform the correct instructions to make proteins). Indeed, scientists will often debate whether an experiment's result should be considered evidence of absence. Something has proven not to be the result of X ( as chance, for example )
4. Intelligence can have the foresight and know-how to make things with a purpose, act towards achieving specific distant goals, and knows how to create codified language, and use that language to create blueprints, used to make complex machines, production lines, and interconnected factories. It can finely tune and arrange things to work in a precise fashion. it can shape and form parts that perform tasks by interacting like lock and key. None of all this has been observed to be achieved by any alternative non-intelligent mechanism. if anyone wants to propose an alternative to replace intelligence, it should meet the burden of proof, and falsify the claim of intelligent design based on empirical testing and falsification.
5. Hence, the argument of Intelligent Design as the best explanation of origins is based on experiments and observation, gained knowledge and experience. Not from ignorance.
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1983-gaps-god-of-the-gaps-and-incredulitya-justified-refutation-of-id-arguments
No, Christianity Does Not Teach God Of The Gaps, But Naturalism Does. Here’s Why | IApologia
http://iapologia.com/no-christianity-does-not-teach-god-of-the-gaps-but-naturalism-does-heres-why-iapologia/?fbclid=IwAR2U7i_32MLr0JRbqzKVhqFLaM24BrIR-Bip5UuSAizl8c_tFfCADuDZwj0
"Incredulous" basically means "I don't believe it". Well, why should someone believe a "just so" story about HOW consciousness, the mind, and the ability to speak and to use language and logic came to exist? That is the THING that I are incredulous about - a *certain scenario* ( naturalism, cosmological, chemical, and biological evolution, abiogenesis, and Neo-Darwinism could emerge naturally and produce the ability to be conscious, perceive, think, judge, and have memory. To reason and having thoughts. Having the power of imagination, recognition, and appreciation, resulting in attitudes and actions. Signals . ) that's only *imagined* about how the brain and firing neurons produced consciousness all by itself, defying known and reasonable principles that each thing is identical to itself. The proponent of naturalism is "incredulous" that an intelligent creator/designer could exist, beyond and behind our entire space-time continuum, who is the superintellect at the bottom of reality. But there is nothing ridiculous about that - especially if you can't personally examine reality to that depth - how do you know nature is all that exists? What IS ridiculous (IMO) is trying to imagine a *naturalistic origin* of the mind. What we need, is giving a *plausible* account of how it came about to be in the first place, and the " No-God hypothesis" simply doesn't cut the cake.
Fine-tuning of the universe
"Incredulous" basically means "I don't believe it". Well, why should someone believe a "just so" story of the amazing capabilities of lucky accidents HOW the universe was finely adjusted to permit a life-permitting universe? That is the THING that i am incredulous about - a *certain scenario* ( natural, unguided lucky accidents precisely adjusted to an unimaginable extreme all laws of physics and cosmological parameters ) that's only *imagined* about how the amazing ability of lucky chaotic accidents defying known and reasonable principles of the limited range of chance, and physical necessity. There are a large number of constants that must be precisely adjusted. Codata lists about 360 different constants, which must precisely be tuned.
Fundamental Physical Constants --- Complete Listing 2018 CODATA adjustment
https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/Table/allascii.txt?fbclid=IwAR1wllIggtvjUltZUyrNeLQO0c67keXqybFrDjwKZ5NFtuIW_bwm6YBf1RU
But the problem extends further, as John Gribbin and Martin Rees explain:
If we modify the value of one of the fundamental constants, something invariably goes wrong, leading to a universe that is inhospitable to life as we know it. When we adjust a second constant in an attempt to fix the problem(s), the result, generally, is to create three new problems for everyone that we “solve.” The conditions in our universe really do seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like ourselves, and perhaps even for any form of organic chemistry.
Changes in the relative strengths of gravity and electromagnetism affect not only cosmological processes but also galaxies, stars, and planets. The strong and weak nuclear forces determine the composition of the universe and, thus, the properties of galaxies, stars, and planets. As a result, we ultimately can’t divorce the chemistry of life from planetary geophysics or stellar astrophysics. Although we have only scratched the surface, it should be clear that
there are many examples of “cosmic-scale” fine-tuning in chemistry, particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology. Most published discussions of such fine-tuning are limited to the requirements for life, but cosmic finetuning
extends well beyond mere habitability.
A large cadre of researchers continues to make new discoveries of new parameters that have to be just right, at a regular basis. The materialistic mythology is that unguided random events explain why the universe operates based on mathematical principles and is finely adjusted to permit life on planet earth, but the system is far, far too complex to occur by accident, and requires that features to support many processes are required, making a path for its cosmic evolution very hard to surmise. Fine-tuning is the secret to a life-permitting universe. It's a whole bunch of puzzles we don't have answers for. The proponent of naturalism is "incredulous" that an intelligent creator/designer could exist, beyond and behind our entire space-time continuum, who is our Creator. But there is nothing ridiculous about that - especially if you can't personally examine reality to that depth - how do you know nature is all that exists? What IS ridiculous (IMO) is trying to imagine a *naturalistic origin* of this unimaginable precision. What we need, is giving a *plausible* account of how it came about to be in the first place, and the " No-God hypothesis" simply doesn't cut the cake.
While theists hear the claim that inferring God is a gaps argument in almost every debate, are atheists not themselves actually guilty of using it?
We don't know:
- if the universe is eternal, there might be multiverses
- how the Big bang started, maybe virtual particles
- why the universe is finely tuned - maybe bubble universes
- how life started, but the Urey Miller experiment showed that amino acids can emerge in the lab, and what science not yet knows, one day it will find out - and it won't be a God
- how exactly evolution works to produce biodiversity, but its a theory, and there is consensus in science, therefore it must be true.
- how the brain can produce thoughts and conscience, but we don't know of a mind being able to exist outside the brain, therefore, monism must be true.
min. 45:04 - God of the gaps arguments
Common atheist fallacies: exposed !!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK99BsNc2Ko&t=3054s
Is the inference of design an argument from ignorance & incredulity?
1. You check and find no money in the wallet
2. It is an argument from knowledge, not from ignorance, to say: There is no money in the wallet
3. If we observe that unguided, natural, non-intelligent mechanisms are too unspecific to bring up the effect observed in molecular biology, namely instructional blueprints to build molecular machines and whole cell-factory complexes, it is not an inference based on ignorance to say: Chance is not a compelling explanation for the phenomena observed in the molecular world, but based on our routine experience that only intelligence can make blueprints, machines and factories.
4. Nor is it an argument from incredulity. The contrary would be credulous. I have not enough faith to believe that random unguided events can bring forward what is seen in the biochemical world. The odds are far too big to account for it. Intelligent Design is the only rational inference and the best explanation.
In the case of worldviews, we do have a neat ordering of competitors. There are basically just two. One with a creator God, and one without. And we CAN knock down naturalism with a few straightforward and judicious blows.
My comment: But in regards to God, we have. Either there is a God, or there is no God. When the No-God hypothesis makes no sense, we can stick to the God hypothesis, no matter how counter-intuitive or incomprehensible it is.
Concluding a Creator as best explanation of our origins is not an argument based on gaps of knowledge and ignorance, but based on what we do know.
Creation demands a Creator. Life comes only from life. The physical laws require a lawmaker. Design demands a designer. DNA is a storage medium of complex, instructional information. Languages, codes, blueprints, ciphers, software, morse codes etc. can always be traced back to an intelligent source. From absolutely nothing, nothing comes. If there were no creator, there would still be nothing. The universe had a beginning, and requires therefore a cause. The physical universe and its laws are interdependent. There are over 150 fine tune constants of the universe that must be all just right to the extreme. The expansion rate of the Big bang, the cosmological constant, the four fundamental forces, and the earth, are fine-tuned and require a tuner, complex, codified, specified, instructional information stored in the genome and epigenetic codes to make the first living organism, the genetic Code, fine optimal adjustment for allowing additional information within protein-coding sequences, and robust than 1 million alternative possible codes, over a dozen epigenetic codes, an information transmission system, that is the origin of the genetic code itself, encoding, transmission, decoding and translation, the genetic cipher/translation, from digital ( DNA / mRNA ) to analog ( Protein ), the hardware, that is DNA, RNA, amino acids, and carbohydrates for fuel generation, the replication/duplication machinery of the DNA, the signal recognition particle, the tubulin Code for correct direction to the final destination of proteins, irreducible, interdependent molecular machines and biosynthetic and metabolic pathways and molecular production lines in the cell point to an intelligent creator. And so does conscience, free will, morality, human values, logic, speech, the mind, and beauty. There is the evidence in nature, we know how to recognize design, therefore it makes most sense to conclude that the natural world was created. That is not an argument of ignorance, but based on the knowledge, we have adquired until now.
The day when scientists discovered that the universe most probably a beginning, it was doomsday for naturalism. Even more, when unprecedented evidence elucidated the shocking and incredible fact that the universe, from the quantum to the macro scale, was adjusted in the extreme to make life possible on earth.
When it became clear, that DNA stores codified information, as well. When it became clear, that biological Cells are miniaturized factories, the funeral bells for a worldview without God where ringing. And so, when science became slowly to realize that Darwin's idea was a fluke.
Nonetheless, atheists organize marches for humanism and secularism, celebrate their stars, open temples to express their unbelief, name call who defies them and doing nothing else than expressing their blindness and bad will.
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.
This is one of the most used refutations used by proponents of naturalism when confronted with a sound inference of design based on POSITIVE evidence. "I don't understand how something could have come about, therefore God!" or "hey, look at this, it's really complex and I can't see how it could have happened naturally" is not the logic of our arguments. God of the gaps is a comfortable way to try to criticize and reject our point and avoid to address actually the issues raised. Opponents of ID resort to it all the time, even when a robust case is made, with clear and detailed science-based observation, prediction, experiment, and logical inference and conclusion. The evidence for intelligent design has not been shrinking in the last two decades. It’s been growing, while the barriers to explain origins through naturalism have grown. This is obvious in regard to all relevant issues: the origin and fine-tuning of the universe, life, and biodiversity.
Strawman arguments of intelligent design
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2361-strawman-arguments-of-intelligen-design
Observation: Intelligent agents act frequently with an end goal in mind, constructing functional irreducibly complex multipart-machines, and make exquisitely integrated circuits that require a blueprint to build the object. Furthermore, Computers integrate software/hardware and store high levels of instructional complex coded information. In our experience, systems that either a)require or b)store large amounts of specified/instructed complex information such as codes and languages, and which are constructed in an interdependence of hard and software invariably originate from an intelligent source. No exception.
Hypothesis (Prediction): Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns, metabolic pathways similar to electronic circuits, and irreducible structures that perform specific functions -- indicating high levels of Information, irreducible complexity, and interdependence, like hard/software.
Experiment: Experimental investigations of DNA, epigenetic codes, and metabolic circuits indicate that biological molecular machines and factories ( Cells ) are full of information-rich, language-based codes and code/blueprint-based structures. Biologists have performed mutational sensitivity tests in proteins and determined that their amino acid sequences, in order to provide function, require highly instructional complex coded information stored in the Genome. Additionally, it has been found out, that cells require and use various epigenetic codes, namely Splicing Codes, Metabolic Codes, Signal Transduction Codes, Signal Integration Codes Histone Codes, Tubulin Codes, Sugar Codes, and The Glycomic Code. Furthermore, all kind of irreducibly complex molecular machines and biosynthesis performing and metabolic pathways have been found, which could not keep their basic functions without a minimum number of parts and complex intertwined and interdependent structures. That indicates these biological machines and pathways had to emerge fully operational, all at once. A stepwise evolutionary manner is not possible. Furthermore, knockout experiments of all components of the flagellum have shown that the flagellum is irreducibly complex.
Conclusion: Unless someone can falsify the prediction, and point out a non-intelligent source of Information as found in the cell, the high levels of instructional complex coded information, irreducible complex and interdependent molecular systems and complex metabolic circuits and biosynthesis pathways, their origin is best explained by the action of an intelligent agent.
Is ID a "god-of-the-gaps" argument?
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1159
(1) Biochemical complexity / Laws of the Universe. High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures are commonly found. The bacterial flagellum is a prime example. Specified complexity found in the laws of the universe may be another.
Prediction of Design Met? (Conclusion)Yes.
(2) Fossil Record Biological complexity (i.e. new species) tend to appear in the fossil record suddenly and without any similar precursors. The Cambrian explosion is a prime example.
Prediction of Design Met? (Conclusion)Yes.
(3) Distribution of Molecular and Morphological Characteristics Similar parts found in different organisms. Many genes and functional parts not distributed in a manner predicted by ancestry, and are often found in clearly unrelated organisms. The "root" of the tree of life is a prime example.
Prediction of Design Met? (Conclusion)Yes.
(4) DNA Biochemical and Biological Functionality Increased knowledge of genetics has created a strong trend towards functionality for "junk-DNA." Examples include recently discovered functionality in some pseudogenes, microRNAs, introns, LINE and ALU elements. Examples of DNA of unknown function persist, but discovery of function may be expected (or lack of current function still explainable under a design paradigm).
Prediction of Design Met? (Conclusion)Yes.
The proponent of natural mechanisms may use words like "incredulity" to make it seem that we are arguing about these things because we can't believe it. But the main point is that it has never been seen to happen. They are talking about speculation, based on .... guess what .... philosophical dogmatic naturalism. To them, there must be a natural explanation, no matter where the evidence points to.
God of the gaps is a comfortable way to try to criticize and reject an argument and avoid to address actually the issues raised. Opponents of ID resort to it all the time, even when a robust case is made, with clear and detailed science-based observation, prediction, experiment, and logical inference and conclusion. The evidence for intelligent design has not been shrinking in the last two decades. It’s been growing, while the barriers to explain origins through naturalism have grown. This is obvious in regard to all relevant issues: the origin and fine-tuning of the universe, of life, and biodiversity.
A short protein molecule of 150 amino acids, the probability of building a 150 amino acids chain in which all linkages are peptide linkages would be roughly 1 chance in 10^45.
Paul Davies once said;
How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software … ? Nobody knows …… there is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing.
Dembsky : We also know from broad and repeated experience that intelligent agents can and do produce information-rich systems: we have positive experience-based knowledge of a cause that is sufficient to generate new instructing complex information, namely, intelligence. the design inference does not constitute an argument from ignorance. Instead, it constitutes an "inference to the best explanation" based upon our best available knowledge. It asserts the superior explanatory power of a proposed cause based upon its proven—its known—causal adequacy and based upon a lack of demonstrated efficacy among the competing proposed causes. The problem is that nature has too many options and without design couldn’t sort them all out. Natural mechanisms are too unspecific to determine any particular outcome. Mutation and natural selection or luck/chance/probablity could theoretically form a new complex morphological feature like a leg or a limb with the right size and form, and arrange to find out the right body location to grow them , but it could also produce all kinds of other new body forms, and grow and attach them anywhere on the body, most of which have no biological advantage or are most probably deleterious to the organism. Natural mechanisms have no constraints, they could produce any kind of novelty. Its however that kind of freedom that makes it extremely unlikely that mere natural developments provide new specific evolutionary arrangements that are advantageous to the organism. Nature would have to arrange almost an infinite number of trials and errors until getting a new positive arrangement. Since that would become a highly unlikely event, design is a better explanation. This situation becomes even more acentuated when natural selection is not a possible constrained since evolution depends on replication, which did not exist prior dna replication
Today, Darwinists level the same charge against the contemporary theory of intelligent design (ID). They insist that ID is just an argument from ignorance—plugging God into the gaps of our current scientific understanding. Darwinists have made many thoughtful arguments over the years, but this isn’t one of them. The theory of intelligent design holds that many things in nature carry a clear signature of design. The theory isn’t based on what scientists don’t know about nature but on what they do know. It’s built on a host of scientific discoveries in everything from biology to astronomy, and some of them are very recent discoveries.
If you were asked how much change do you have in your pockets. You can put your hand in your pocket, look to see how many coins are there. If there is no loose change, it is NOT an argument from ignorance to state, “Sorry, I don’t have any spare change.” You didn’t guess. You stuck your hands in your pockets and looked, and deduced the quantity to be zero. The same is true with inferences in regard of biology or biochemistry. After the search has taken place, the prediction that biochemical systems are unable to emerge by natural means is confirmed. Hence, there is no argument from ignorance.
In the design revolution, Dembski writes on page 220:
So see that the argument from ignorance objection is not a magic wand for silencing intelligent design, let's begin with a reality check. When is the argument from ignorance objection raised against intelligent design, who exactly is being accused of being ignorant? Its natural to think that the ignorance here is on the part of design theorists, who want to attribute intelligent agency to biological systems. If only those poor design theorists understood biology better, those systems would readily submit to mechanistic explanation. Matter of fact IMHO is, that despite decades of research, the scientific community has been desperately and unsuccessfully tried to discover how such systems could have formed, what mechanism exactly was in charge. Who is ignorant here? The Scientific community as a whole. In fact, its safe to say that the biological community is clueless about the emergence of biological complexity. How so?
Because the material mechanisms to which the biological community looks to explain biological complexity provide no clue for how those systems might realistically have come about. the problem, therefore, is not ignorance or personal incredulity, but global disciplinary failure, and gross theoretical inadequacy of Darwin's theory. James Shapiro, molecular biologist at the University of Chicago, conceded that system that exhibits specified complexity are likely to be designed. Design theorists, in attributing design to systems that exhibit specified complexity (SC), are simply doing what scientists do generally, which is an attempt to formulate a causally adequate explanation for the phenomenon in question. To attribute specified complexity, and thereby design, to a biological system is to engage in an eliminative induction, a form of reasoning, used throughout the sciences.
William Dembski: Eliminative inductions argue for the truth of a proposition by arguing that competitors to that proposition are false. ( Contrast this with Popperian falsification, where propositions are corroborated to the degree that they successfully withstand attempts to falsify them ) Provided the proposition, together with its competitors, form a mutually exclusive and exhaustive class, eliminating all the competitors entails that the proposition is true. As Sherlock Holmes famous dictum says: when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. This is the ideal case, in which eliminative inductions, in fact, become deductions. The problem is that in practice we don't have a neat ordering of competitors that can then all be knocked down with a few straightforward and judicious blows.
If naturalistic explanations of the origin of life are not convincing, why not look somewhere else ?
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1508-will-we-eventually-discover-a-naturalistic-explanation-for-first-life
If a certain line of reasoning is not persuasive or convincing, then why do atheists not change their mind because of it? The more evolution papers are published, the less likely the scenario becomes. Some assertions have even been falsified. We should consider the fact that modern biology may have reached its limits on several subjects of biology. All discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in vague suppositions and guesswork, statements of blind faith, made up scenarios, or in a confession of ignorance. Fact is there remains a huge gulf in our understanding… This lack of understanding is not just ignorance about some technical details; it is a big conceptual gap. The reach of the end of the road is evident in the matter of almost all major questions. The major questions of macro change and abiogenesis are very far from being clearly formulated, even understood, and nowhere near being solved, and for most, there is no solution at all at sight. But proponents of evolution firmly believe, one day a solution will be on sight. Isn't that a prima facie of a " evolution of the gap" argument? We don't know yet, therefore evolution and abiogenesis? That way, the God hypothesis remains out of the equation in the beginning, and out at the end, and never receives a serious and honest consideration. If the scientific evidence does not provide satisfactory explanations through naturalism, why should we not change your minds and look somewhere else?
ID is not a substitute for ignorance. If we don’t know the cause of something that does not mean it was designed. When we make design inferences—and all of us make them every day—we do so on the basis of evidence; the more evidence, the more reliable the design inference.
From Stephen Meyers book Signature in the cell :
In an explanatory context, arguments from ignorance have the form:
Premise One: Cause X cannot produce or explain evidence E. Conclusion: Therefore, cause Y produced or explains E.
Critics of intelligent design claim that the argument for intelligent design takes this form as well. As one of my frequent debating partners, Michael Shermer, likes to argue, "Intelligent design argues that life is too specifically complex (complex structures like DNA) to have evolved by natural forces. Therefore, life must have been created by an
intelligent designer." In short, critics claim that ID proponents argue as follows:
Premise One: Material causes cannot produce or explain specified information.
Conclusion: Therefore, an intelligent cause produced specified biological information.
If proponents of intelligent design were arguing in a preceding manner, they would be guilty of arguing from ignorance. But the argument takes the following form:
Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent biological systems.
Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent systems of all sorts.
Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information and irreducible complexity in the cell, and interdependence of proteins, organelles, and bodyparts, and even of animals and plants, aka moths and flowers, for example.
Or to put it more formally, the case for intelligent design made here has the form:
Last edited by Otangelo on Thu Sep 26, 2024 12:47 pm; edited 120 times in total
But to get serious (well, as serious as I get), you're right that every time we can't explain something, we shouldn’t just shout, "It's God!" and mic drop. I mean, who'd clean up all those dropped mics? But isn't it just a wee bit cheeky to say, "We don't know, so it's definitely not God"?
�
