Per Wikipedia:
"God of the gaps" is a theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence.
Creationists are often accused of using a god-of-the-gaps argument to bolster creationism. That is, it's been said that we point to a lack of any natural explanation for some phenomenon as though that were evidence for a supernatural explanation. I suppose that happens sometimes and we should be careful not to let that be our entire argument. On the other hand, it's not entirely unreasonable to suppose a natural explanation for the evidence doesn't exist because the truth is a supernatural cause.
Consider, for a moment, that a suspect's fingerprints were found in blood at a murder scene. The most obvious conclusion is that the suspect was at the murder scene at about the time of the murder. His defense attorney might deny his client was there but without any plausible alternative of how his fingerprints got there, the jury will probably stick with the most obvious conclusion. Even if the defense suggests some alternative. The jury may still reject a far-fetched explanation in favor of a more reasonable one.
The same is true about creation. One simple explanation for the existence of the universe is that it is the creation of God. Secular scientists might object but without any credible alternative explanation of how everything came into existence, why should I summarily reject a very plausible explanation? They're welcome to say this is a god-of-the-gaps argument but that flimsy criticism would only have merit if the correct explanation is necessarily the natural one!
In a recent post, I talked about the bias held by most of the scientific community that every phenomenon must have a natural explanation but there's not an objective reason to believe that must be so. It's more of a secular dogma. So to say the lack of a natural explanation is evidence of nothing because a natural explanation must exist is itself an empty argument. It's the secular way of saying, “nature-did-it.”
Let's set all that aside, though. My belief in creation isn't limited to what can't be explained by science. I believe in creation because of the things I already know are true! I'll start with design.
If I
found pebbles stacked in the shape of a pyramid, I would know they
were intentionally stacked that way. It doesn't matter that I didn't
see them being stacked or that I don't know who stacked them, I would
still know that they were arranged with intent and purpose. How do I
know this? It's because I've learned that organization is the product
of design. Everyone has learned this. We recognize design seemingly
without effort. In an instant, we can tell the difference between a
pattern painted on the floor and paint spilled on the floor.
https://unsplash.com/@jeremythomasphoto
Scientists know this already. If the Mars Rover found a rock with weird symbols engraved on it, they would immediately know some intelligent being carved them. It wouldn't matter if they couldn't read the symbols. It wouldn't matter if they never found out who carved them. The presence of the symbols alone would prompt a barrage of headlines saying, “Intelligent life was once on Mars!”
Life is remarkably organized. The DNA molecule is exceedingly complex – far more complex than a stack of pebbles or symbols carved on a rock. Our bodies are incredible machines with thousands of intricate parts. Our circulatory, respiratory, and nervous systems are complicated and extremely fine tuned. Life is far more than a collection of chemicals – it's about organization. Simply finding amino acids in nature is a far cry from believing amino acids could arrange themselves into a DNA molecule. It's like the difference between pebbles strewn along a beach and pebbles stacked in the shape of a pyramid. It all screams of design. It screams so loudly that scientists go to great lengths to explain why things might seem designed but really aren't.
The organization of living things (from bacteria to basketball players) is evidence for creation. It's not that we don't know how life could happen so, therefore, goddidit. Instead, we know it's created because we know organization is the result of intelligence. So, yes! God did it!
But besides the obvious design we see in nature, there's another scientific principle I've learned that tells me the universe was created. I believe it was in my 9th grade physical science class where I first heard the phrase “matter can neither be created nor destroyed – it can only change forms.” It wasn't until much later that I understood this is a scientific law called the conservation of matter/energy. You can convert matter into energy (as in Einstein's famous formula, E=mc2) but the total amount of matter/energy in the universe remains constant.
So if new matter isn't being created, where did all the existing matter come from? Scientifically speaking, I know it can't be created naturally. Therefore, it must have been created supernaturally. That is the only other option. I think secular scientists truly want to have it both ways. When pressed about the origin of matter, they sometimes weakly appeal to some quantum mechanism where electrons seem to appear out of nothing but they still refuse to abandon the trusted certainty that the total matter/energy in the universe doesn't change. They want us to believe the universe poofed into existence while simultaneously telling us matter doesn't poof into existence. It's funny. I already know matter doesn't poof into existence. Therefore, I know that matter and time and space were supernaturally created.
There are probably other examples I could give but let's wrap this up. Creation is sort of like the miracles performed by Jesus. If I lived in a 3rd world country, I might think David Blaine was a sorcerer. However, I know they're really just card tricks. They may be clever, but they're not magic. It is by that same principle that I can identify the miracles of Jesus. People can't really walk on water. People can't really rise from the dead. It is because I understand how nature works that I know Jesus performed miracles.
Matter exists but I know it can't be created naturally. Organization exists but it doesn't happen randomly. They're miracles. And I don't believe they're miracles simply because science doesn't have any explanation for them. It's precisely because I understand science that I understand that creation is a miracle.
If I found pebbles stacked in the shape of a pyramid, I would know they were intentionally stacked that way.
ReplyDeleteIf you found a torrent of falling snowflakes, all exhibiting elaborate hexagonal symmetry, would you assume a snowflake factory in the sky? If you were observing the Giant's Causeway in Northern Ireland, would you assume that actual giants manufactured those hexagonal paving blocks? Organization in some cases definitely occurs naturally.
And again, you are inferring that a known class of agents with known abilities, limits, and interests built something simple; an omnipotent God creating complex cells (even though He is not, as we are, constrained to use complexity to attain some results) is not quite the same sort of explanation.
If the Mars Rover found a rock with weird symbols engraved on it, [scientists] would immediately know some intelligent being carved them.
This is importantly different from the usual "finding I LOVE YOU scrawled in the sand at the beach" analogy (in that case, again, we infer not merely design, but design specifically by English speakers!). In point of fact, there are cases in which scientists were not certain whether a pattern was produced by mindless nature or intelligent extraterrestrials: the original discovery of pulsars came after the discovery of what was called the "LGM" signal (for "little green men"), which resembled (but apparently was not) the sort of regular radio signal a human-built beacon might send. Elaborate patterns on rock resembling no known language might be the product of an unknown intelligence, or an unknown unintelligent process.
The organization of living things (from bacteria to basketball players) is evidence for creation.
Scientists have only preliminary hypotheses and conjectures about how life first arose. But the elaboration of structures through mutation and natural selection has been observed in nature (e.g. the emergence of cecal valves in the intestines of Italian wall lizards on Pod Mrcaru) and modeled in computer simulations. Given initial life, mutation and natural selection can "design."
So if new matter isn't being created, where did all the existing matter come from
I am aware of two basic possibilities (with variations on both).
First, it's all an accounting trick; the inflation of space-time creates a massive amount of negative energy (as in, less than zero energy), requiring the appearance of an equal amount of positive energy to balance it, and the total energy of the universe is, in fact, zero.
Second, there are a number of cyclic models of the universe, in which the Big Bang was not a unique event but a recycling of matter and energy from a previous instantiation of the universe.
Or, of course, we could simply dismiss, until further evidence is in, the idea that matter "came from" anywhere, rather than simply having always existed in some form or other (the cyclic universe is one form of this, but there are others).
It is because I understand how nature works that I know Jesus performed miracles.
David Hume made two separate points about this: first, we know that people can just make up stories, so it is more reasonable to ascribe stories about supernatural events to misreporting rather than to actual supernatural events. But on the other hand, we don't know all the possible operations of natural phenomena, so it is more reasonable to attribute even the most irrefutable report of a miracle to unknown natural causes than to supernatural causes.
Steven J,
DeleteYou said, “If you found a torrent of falling snowflakes, all exhibiting elaborate hexagonal symmetry, would you assume a snowflake factory in the sky? If you were observing the Giant's Causeway in Northern Ireland, would you assume that actual giants manufactured those hexagonal paving blocks? Organization in some cases definitely occurs naturally.”
I'm aware of instances like those above. In most cases, though the results seem complex, the mechanism are “low information.” I remember, some years back, a little computer language called Logos. You gave commands that moved the cursor (I think it was called a “turtle”) around the screen and it drew a line wherever it went. The commands were simple – something like “forward 5, right 12 degrees, forward 5, repeat 10 times.” By following simple instructions like this over and over, it drew seemingly complex patterns on the screen.
Of course, I did include intent and purpose as evidence for design as well. A piece of flint, chipped away to have a sharp point, with notches that allow it to be fastened to an arrow, seems to have the purpose of being an arrow head. It's far less complex than a snowflake but it has obviously been designed.
I'm curious, do you believe there's no way to identify a difference between complexity and design?
Concerning the origin of matter/energy, you said, “First, it's all an accounting trick; the inflation of space-time creates a massive amount of negative energy (as in, less than zero energy), requiring the appearance of an equal amount of positive energy to balance it, and the total energy of the universe is, in fact, zero.”
You may be aware my degree is in business – which I guess is still technically a science but not in the sense most people understand science. Anyway, I know that negative numbers are real numbers. It's easy to understand the concept of “less than zero.” What is more far-fetched is the idea there can be “less than nothing.” And by what mechanism do we borrow from nothing to create something? That sounds like it would require even more energy than what is being borrowed and maybe even an agent to do it. Also, if it could be done, there should be equal amounts of matter and anti-matter in the universe. So, you would have to devise a method of creating matter and anti-matter OUT OF NOTHING, and there must be a way to keep them apart because they should automatically annihilate each other.
Oh, and remember too that there are other properties of the universe – things like space and time. Not only should there be matter/anti-matter, there should also be space/anti-space and time/anti-time.
You said, “Second, there are a number of cyclic models of the universe, in which the Big Bang was not a unique event but a recycling of matter and energy from a previous instantiation of the universe.”
I find it curious how unbelievers are often willing to believe in an eternal, uncreated universe but not in an eternal, uncreated Creator. They're fine with ascribing divine-like qualities to mindless matter but stubbornly reject divine design in the creation. How strange.
Thanks again for visiting. God bless!!
RKBentley
I was wondering what you found objectionable in my previous comments that caused you to leave them unpublished.
ReplyDeleteHmm. Not sure what you mean. I don’t have any unpublished comments. I double checked my spam folder just to be sure there’s nothing there and there isn’t.
ReplyDeleteI’m fairly lax about publishing comments. I only added moderation because I was getting spammed so much by bots. Unless a comment contains excessive profanity or links to questionable sources, I will publish it.
If you’ve left some that I haven’t published, I apologize. I assure you it was because of some glitch and not intentional. Thank you for visiting and letting me know. Please keep visiting. God bless!!
RKBentley