[...]
>
>The God-of-the-gaps argument is really based on the implicit
>assumption that naturalism is more likely to be true and theism
>more likely to be false:
>
>"Theistic evolutionists' standard use of the phrase "God of the gaps"
>to discourage consideration of nonnaturalistic possibilities, for
>example, comes straight out of their implicit MN...The problem, very
>briefly stated, is this: if employing MN is the only way to reach true
>conclusions about the history of the universe, and if the attempt to
>provide a naturalistic history of the universe has continually gone
>from success to success, and if even theists concede that trying to do
>science on theistic premises always leads nowhere or into error (the
>embarrassing "God of the gaps"), then the likely explanation for this
>state of affairs is that naturalism is true and theism is false."
>(Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance", 1995, p211)
>
The more likely explanation is our inability to know the mind
of God. The issues involved here were grapled with by theistic
scientists before Darwin. Design was excluded from science due
to the concerted efforts of many scientists, many of whom
were theists and many of whom were creationists. The following
quote from D'Alembert provodes a nice summary of the reasons:
=====
The laws of equilibrium and of motion are necessary truths.
A metaphysician would perhaps be satisfied to prove this
by saying that it was the wisdom of the Creator and the
simplicity of his intentions never to establish other laws
of equilibrium and of motion than those which follow from
the very existence of bodies and their mutual impenetrability.
But we have considered it our duty to abstain from this kind
of argument, because it has seemed to us that it is based on
too vague a principle. The nature of the Supreme Being is
too well concealed for us to be able to know directly what
is, or is not, in conformity with his wisdom. We can only
discover the effect of his wisdom by the observation of the
laws of nature, since mathematical reasoning has made the
simplicity of these laws evident to us, and experiment has
shown us their application and scope.
It seems to me that this consideration can be used to
judge the value of the demonstrations of the laws of
motion which have been given by several philosophers,
in accordance with the principle of final causes; that
is, according to the intentions that the Author of nature
might have formulated in establishing these laws. Such
demonstrations cannot have as much force as those which
are preceded and supported by direct demonstrations, and
that are deduced from principles more within our grasp.
Otherwise, it often happens that they lead us into error.
It is because he followed this method, and because he
believed that it was the Creator's wisdom to conserve
the same quantity of motion in the Universe always, that
Descartes has been misled about the laws of impact.
Those who imitate him run the risk of being similarly
deceived; or of giving as a principle, something that
is only true in certain circumstances; or finally, of
regarding something which is only a mathematical
consequence of certain formulae as a fundamental law
of nature. -- D'Alembert
======
Richard Owen is an excellent example of the creationists
who opposed the use of design in biological science.
Owen even went so far as to use the argument from imperfection.
Owen's point was very much the same as D'Alembert's. It is
not that Owen believed organisms were not designed or that
they were not created (he believed both), but that this was
not a useful principle for doing science.
>If that's the case, why be a theist?
>
Jesus.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"It is not certain that all is uncertain,
to the glory of skepticism." -- Pascal