Who Really Commits the God-of-the-Gaps Fallacy?

— By Frank Turek

The God-of-the-Gaps fallacy occurs when someone falsely believes that God caused the event when it really was caused by undiscovered natural phenomena. For example, people used to believe that lightning was caused directly by God. There was a gap in our knowledge of nature, so we attributed the effect to God. Darwinists What the 7734 is a darwinist!? assert that theists are doing the same thing by claiming that God created the universe and life. Are they correct? No, for a number of reasons.

And your reasons all ultimately lie. That is my prediction before reading further.

First, when we conclude that intelligence created the first cell or the human brain, it’s not simply because we lack evidence of a natural explanation; it’s also because we have positive, empirically detectable evidence for an intelligent cause. A message (specified complexity (that info theory bullshit written by Dempski does NOT apply to biologics)) is empirically detectable. When we detect a message, like “Take out the garbage, Mom” or 1,000 encyclopedias, we know that it must come from an intelligent being because all of our observational experience tells us that messages come only from intelligent beings. Every time we observe a message, it comes from an intelligent being. We couple this data with the fact that we never observe natural laws creating messages, and we know an intelligent being must be the cause. That’s a valid scientific conclusion based on observation and repetition. It’s not an argument from ignorance, nor is it based on any “gap” in our knowledge.

But you just said a bunch of childish dribble proving nothing. Where is the scientific OHEFE? AND always remember, before you can claim intelligent design, you MUST first prove the intelligent agent/agency.

Second, Intelligent Design scientists are open to both natural and intelligent causes. They are not opposed to continued research into a natural explanation for the first life. They’re simply observing that all known natural explanations fail, and all empirically detectable evidence points to an Intelligent Designer. Which you must first prove exists before claiming design.

IDF scientists are NOT open to anything other than their IDF brain diarrhea. It is simply a re-branding of the creationism myth. Why do you think they work so hard to create beLIEvable LIES? Pervert and Twist facts and evidence into a monstrous misrepresentation. LYING. And does my “Life From Lifelessness” hypothesis fail? No. Actually, it is the most plausible. The Great Earth Mother cooked Life into existence.

Now, one can question the wisdom of continuing to look for a natural cause of life. William Dembski, who has published extensive research on Intelligent Design, asks, “When does determination [to find a natural cause] become pigheadedness? ... How long are we to continue a search before we have the right to give up the search and declare not only that continuing the search is vain but also that the very object of the search is nonexistent?” Consider the implications of Dembski’s question. Should we keep looking for a natural cause for phenomena like Mount Rushmore or messages like “Take out the garbage, Mom”? When is the case closed?

I have seriously considered both Dempski and Meyers. Why do you think their contribution to knowledge went to /dev/null? And I have ceased paying for y’awl’s Brain Diarrhea. I just cannot abide garbage in my library. The one FACT that disproves IDF is that Information Theory is NOT a theory. It is a logical mechanism for dealing with those huge globs of 1s and 0s. It is NOT applicable to anything biology. Biology does not work logically. Thus, those things attributed with Dempski’s info theory: Code of the DNA, Specified Complexity, et cetera, et alia; cannot be defined by info theory because the Natural World possesses The ICIDIC. As far as, When is the case closed?, it never is. Remember, by its very nature, infinity also regresses and progresses infinitely. And, I SHALL be the first, that is a concept infinitely difficult to grasp. I found mine epiphany during a psychenautic voyage. Those devil-drugs are NOT always evil.

Walter Bradley, a coauthor of the seminal work The Mystery of Life’s Origin, believes “there doesn’t seem to be the potential of finding a [natural explanation]” for the origin of life. He added, “I think people who believe that life emerged naturalistically need to have a great deal more faith than people who reasonably infer that there’s an Intelligent Designer.” Regardless of whether or not you think we should keep looking for a natural explanation, the main point is that ID scientists are open to both natural and intelligent causes. It just so happens that an intelligent cause best fits the evidence.

IDF has been utterly debunked by a comedian, then used by Neil deGrasse Tyson, and by me: If our design were so intelligent, simply look between your legs. An entertainment complex hooked in with a septic system. I wished I knew who that was…

Third, the Intelligent Design conclusion is falsifiable. In other words, ID could be disproven if natural laws were some day discovered to create specified complexity Already has. LIFE has done so through the Theory of Evolution with The ICIDIC.. However, the same cannot be said about the Darwinist What the 7734 is a darwinist!? position. Darwinists don’t allow falsification of their “creation story” What “creation story”? because, as we have described, they don’t allow any other creation story to be considered. Only if scientific. IDF is NOT science. Their “science” is not tentative or open to correction; it’s more closed-minded than the most dogmatic church doctrine the Darwinists are so apt to criticize.

As far as being tentative and open, remember one FACT Einstein said, paraphrased, “It takes a million experiments to prove a Theory. It only takes one to disprove it.” And ALL the Word Salad, Gish Gallop, BeLIEvable Prevarications, Horse hoowhee, Bullshit, and Brain Diarrhea you Religitards spew. I shall be the first to say I am NOT an Evolutionary Biologist; however, my understanding of that science is infinitely greater than any Religitard, even Georgia Purdy. And, just now, me thinks you mean Evolutionary Biologist when you say Darwinist. Religitards at their best.

My use of Religitard is not ad hominem. Science has proven otherwise.

Finally, it’s actually the Darwinists who are committing a kind of God-of the-Gaps fallacy. Darwin himself was once accused of considering natural selection “an active power or Deity” (see chapter 4 of Origin of Species). But it seems that natural selection actually is the deity or “God of the Gaps” for the Darwinists of today. When they are totally at a loss for how irreducibly complex, information-rich biological systems came into existence, they simply cover their gap in knowledge by claiming that natural selection, time, and chance did it. EXACTLY!

Except it was NOT chance, Natural Selection. The study of allele frequency changes across generations within a population. Yes, biological systems are extremely complex. Information-Rich, Yes. However, biological information does not work with logic systems, except in proving scientific theories. DNA does NOT work that way. What of the Nuclides? Isotopes? A phosphorus isotope within a molecule of DNA will be treated no differently than regular phosphorus. BUT, does that isotope have an effect on this information? The analogy Dempski would use is like a computer virus in the system. False Analogy Fallacy.

The ability of such a mechanism to create information-rich biological systems runs counter to the observational evidence. WHERE? Mutations that aren’t neutral are nearly always harmful Bullshit!, and time and chance do the Darwinists no good, as we explained in chapter 5. At best, natural selection may be responsible for minor changes in living species, but it cannot explain the origin of the basic forms of life Yes we can. With mountains of OHEFE. You need a living thing to start with for any natural selection to take place. Yet, despite the obvious problems with their mechanism, Darwinists insist that Natural Selection covers any gap in their knowledge. Moreover, they willfully ignore the positive, empirically detectable evidence for an intelligent being. This is not science but the dogma of a secular religion. One could say that Darwinists, like the opponents of Galileo, are letting their religion (or at least their philosophy) overrule scientific observations.

And what scientific observations are you talking about? I have yet to see you present scientific OHEFE. Remember the Truth Scale?: 0 ≤ N < 1? You have hit literal zero evidence.

BTW-FYI: That scale is read, “Zero is less than, or equal to N which is less than one.” Probability has the same scale.

Top of page

— The Unknown Atheist