Discoveroids Try To Rebut God of the Gaps

Once again our entertainment comes from the Discovery Institute — which indicates the total absence of actual creationist news in the world. Anyway, the latest gem at their creationist blog is titled Watch: The Multiverse Is Some Scientists’ “God of the Gaps”. It was written by Klinghoffer. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

The “God of the gaps” label is a favorite with critics of intelligent design.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! It’s a “favorite” only in the sense that it’s a fallacy used all the time by creationists, so those of us on the science side of the debate often mention that it’s being used again. Anyway, Klinghoffer says:

It’s a fallacy, of course, since ID theory appeals not to what we don’t know but to what we do know about how creative and intelligent agents operate.

Amazing, isn’t it? More than amazing, it’s revolting. Let’s get serious here. Wikipedia’s article on God of the gaps says:

“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.

God of the gaps is one of the principal arguments of creationists, and we point this out all the time. That bothers them, and sometimes they deny what they are so obviously doing. A good example is this from several years ago: Klinghoffer: “We Don’t Use God of the Gaps”. If you need any incentive to read it, we used Discoveroid logic to explain the origin of the female breast. But we apologize for the digression. Returning to the topic of the day, Klinghoffer tells us:

But it’s not the case that debates about ID are free of appeals to a “Gaps” deity. Philosopher and scientist Kirk Durston identifies “Science’s ‘god’ of the gaps”:

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Yes, it’s the folks on the science side of the debate who use a god of the gaps. Klinghoffer continues:

By “science” he means a rigid, question-begging notion of scientific thinking. [Huh?] As biologist Eugene Koonin put it, “By showing that highly complex systems, actually, can emerge by chance and, moreover are inevitable, if extremely rare, in the universe, the present model sidesteps the issues of irreducibility and leaves no room whatsoever for intelligent design.”

Fortunately there’s just a little bit left to the Discoveroid post. Here it comes:

This brand of scientific ideology requires a “God of the gaps” — Koonin’s “present model” — to explain away mysteries like the origin of life. And it finds its God, as Durston explains, in the form of the multiverse.

The multiverse? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! And that, boys and girls, is how you rebut claims that your “science” of intelligent design relies on the god of the gaps. Oh, we almost forgot — there’s some kind of video you can watch at the Discoveroid post, titled Science’s ‘god’ of the gaps.. Watch it at your own risk.

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

9 responses to “Discoveroids Try To Rebut God of the Gaps

  1. Again the IDiots show they know nothing of science or how it operates. The “multiverse” is nothing more than a hypothesis that is currently untestable and thus isn’t really scientific. Its an interesting idea, but until we can figure out a way to test it, its just going to be an interesting idea. The point being, an untestable hypothesis is really useless from a scientific point of view. When that changes, lets talk.

  2. Dave Luckett

    “ID theory appeals not to what we don’t know but to what we do know about how creative and intelligent agents operate,” says Klonkbopper, thus demonstrating that he knows nothing at all about how creative and intelligent designers operate.

  3. How do the Intelligent Designers operate on life?

  4. @TomS “How do the Intelligent Designers operate on life?”

    That question is akin to how do miracles work? Nobody ever bothers to investigate. Or even ask the question. Nobody seems to care.

  5. Cicero, reporting an argument of the Epicureans, in “On the Nature of the Gods” I.viii
    “What materials, what tools, what bars, what machines, what servants, were employed in so vast a work? … they look more like things to be desired than to be discovered. … what was the plan and preparation …?”

  6. @TomS: Cicero nailed it (how many years ago)! If Klingerberger wants us to consider “intelligent design” as a science, he’d better come up with the things Cicero asks about. Otherwise, it’s just ID of the gaps along with his favorite god!

  7. Cicero lived in the last century BCE. “On the Nature of the Gods” represents an imaginary discussion between proponents of the major philosophical schools of his day, and not Cicero’s own opinion. The text that I quoted is part of a speech by an Epicurean.

  8. @TomS I’m glad that at least you and the Epicureans are asking the right questions. There is hope. 😀

  9. David Sedley is a respected student of Ancient Greek philosophy. See his 2007 book: Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity.