Home

Many views on the Origin of Universe are available. Most popular view is that universe was born with a big-bang from a highgly dense energy point. But I have some different view on it. I think the universe was not born from a concentrated point or ball like structure but it has evolved from an infinite vast expanse of field of gravity. Philosophically or religously we may call it field of consciousness or spirituality.

A great flow of current of gravitation force descended down from this source and has created many regions of pure gravitation force below it. This was the creation for quite some time in the first phase of the creational process. In the second phase when the current of gravitation force further descended down then electromagnetic forces and matter (weak and strong nuclear forces)manifested and the entire universe of the second phase was completed with the admixture of all the forces viz., gravitatin force, electromagnetic forces, and matter (weak and strong nuclear forces. The completion of the whole cosmos in two phases was also hinted in one of the speeches of Prof. J.V.Narlikar some years back. When the process of creation of universe reverts back in Brahmand (universe created during second phase of creational process)the matter merges into electromagnetic force and then finally electromagnetic forces merge into gravitation force and nothing remains except field of gravity in a highly dense body (Black Hole. The process of reversal does not take place in the universe created during first phase of creation. The cycle of universe completes like this.

Many philosophical-scientific evidences can be quoted in support of this assumption
.

Many philosophical-scientific evidences can be quoted in support of this assumption

Then by all means, quote them, so that we may have something to actually discuss. Marginally coherent speculation such as that which you’ve posted is rather difficult to interact with.

Many views on the Origin of Universe are available

No doubt. But there are reasons why one stands out among the rest. Big Bang Cosmology has, over the last century been confirmed empirically again and again. But your speculations on your unusual cosmogony are not really germane to the article.

This reads like an essay for course work rather than a blog article – so I may be missing some of the context (are you doing a course in this area?). However, I would like to offer some comments from a scientific perspective because I think there are some fundamental mistakes here:

1: Scientists are (relatively) happy about gaps. They will often answer a query with “I don’t know.” That’s not just a matter of honesty – it’s also because we then say “But let’s find out.” Scientists actually love “gaps” – this provides an area for their work (and possibly a future Nobel Prize).

2: “God did it” is never a satisfactory “explanation for a gap.” This is not because of the god concept – after all it is feasible that we could, one day, develop a detailed god theory – based on evidence and verified by mapping against reality. If we had this then we could provide a structured and testable explanation for the “gap.” But, let’s face it, the god concept today means different things to different people. It has no accepted structure or explanatory power. Scientists are far happier just to say I don’t know, but let’s investigate it!” than use science stoppers like “the flying spaghetti monster, or god, did it.”

3: Implied in the need for structure and testability characterizing scientific explanation is also use value. So a theory developed to explain a “gap” will not only lead to experiential testing (mapping against reality), but also to providing an improved basis for explaining other areas of reality. And usually other use values, for example technological advances. This may, of course, take time. However, an unstructured, non-detailed claim with no use-value cannot “explain” a gap.

4: Your distinguishing between experimental and “origin” science is artificial and disingenuous – aimed obviously at trying to discredit a huge body of well accepted scientific knowledge. Such a justification for “god did it” would make this claim acceptable (instead of forensic science) in a court of law. And, outside a few decadent theocracies, this is just not allowed. Most scientists will work with, and design experiments in, situations within a laboratory and historical situations. Experiential verification does not limit itself to “experimental” actions. In other words we very often rely on “nature” to do the experiments for us.

5: Your presentation of the teleological argument (first asterisk) is really exactly the same as Bill Dembski’s “design filter.” It’s a stupid argument – as you can easily see by changing the order of the 3 steps – designed to always present design as a default argument. Even Dembski has now disowned this form of the argument (probably preferring to stick with [the unnecessary] mathematical formulation which has the advantage of confusing, and therefore impressing, the mathematical challenged).

Sorry missed two important points:

6: You too easily make claims that things are “widely recognised to be a matter beyond science”, “fall outside the scientific endeavour”, “beyond the scope of science”, “outside science”. I think you are just really exposing your wishful thinking here as these things are not considered (by scientists) as outside science.

It is only science that is actively speculating (in a detailed and structured way), researching, proposing hypotheses and testing hypotheses related to the formation of our universe, the coming into existence of “matter.” There are some well developed and very structured scientific ideas in these areas – some aspects of which get tested or will be in the next few years. In fact, the layperson just can’t appreciate that there is already wide scientific acceptance of some of these theories. It’s exciting work and the cosmologists involved are very enthusiastic and motivated. A simple “god did it” science stopping answer in these gaps just can’t compare.

7: re the “expressing the wonder of God’s created order” rather than a “god did it” explanation for a gap. I can well appreciate this – and it’s one reason why non-theist scientists like Einstein often used the god word in such situations. I, myself, feel this awe for both reality, in all its splendour and order, and humanity’s investigating and discovering reality – humanity’s scientific knowledge and understanding. I believe these (theist and non-theist) are just two ways of expressing a common awe – theistic beliefs are not required for this. My personal opinion is that a theistic belief (at least the naive ones commonly expressed by creationists, etc.) would actually get in the way of experiencing that awe.

Ken,

Thank you for comments. The above article is in part a response born out of frustration with displays, such as on your blog, of the scientism so often displayed there. I have a distaste for lengthy comments so I’ll chop mine up into bite sized pieces.

Re 1:

Your comment here about the attitude of the scientist towards gaps is the same with both theists and non-theists alike. The article is specifically levelled against those who blithely use the god-of-the-gaps argument against the arguments of natural theology and not at any old gap there happens to be. The discussion takes place on the more broader plain of the interaction between science and faith, which is itself apart of the philosophy of science.

Re 2:

Your objection here,

“God did it” is never a satisfactory “explanation for a gap.”

is exactly the kind of thing the above article tries to blunt the force of. The justification you give for such a remark seems to be (i) there is religious confusion on what is entailed by the conception of God (what you call the “god concept”), and (ii) a better way discovering truth is through the scientific method and until then it is better to be content with ignorance with the promise of further scientific investigation.

For (i) the concept of God is well established and broadly accepted in philosophy. From the Christian theological perspective I approach from the concept of God is extremely well established. For future reference this “God” is the greatest conceivable being, uncaused and necessary, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, immaterial and personal (the list goes on but you get the idea). Disagreement on the above conceptual outline in no way drags down natural theology’s arguments that seek to find those very attributes. Those arguments considered it may very well be the case that said being has great explanatory power.

For (ii) I apologise if I have misread you. Your statement

Scientists are far happier just to say I don’t know, but let’s investigate it!” than use science stoppers like “the flying spaghetti monster, or god, did it.”

seems to imply (ii) at least. Of course science is not the only way of discovering truth – as should be obvious – so positing God in a gap may very well be justifiable. If you are implying that “a better way discovering truth is through the scientific method” that is self-referencially incoherent. Is that itself a scientific statement?

If you are saying for a scientist, who is working strictly within the borders of science, it is an invalid move to posit God in a gap where there is currently ignorance, then I grant that. But on the same merits neither can that same scientist rule out the existence of God nor say that God does not belong in any gap. So the charge of stopping the endeavour of science is groundless, wholly apart from the partial criticisms of that very charge that I have dealt with partially in points (1), (2) and (7).

Re 3:

I take it that what you are saying here is that if x does not have ‘use value,’ therefore x does not explain a gap. As a principle I would just say that is false. A fact or explanation need not have any usefulness for it to be true. Within the arena of science I might agree that the better hypotheses are those which provide opportunities for further application. But such a concession is water of a ducks back, because all that would mean is that placing God in a gap is not a scientific hypothesis.

That’s all I need to say there, but I would go further and say that the explanation “Therefore, God exists” is eminently useful information. As a model it has great explanatory scope and is in accord with other accepted beliefs, provides powerful existential meaning to life, and on Christian theism is the first step towards a relationship with Him and eternal life.

Re 4:

The idea of origin science is not new, though the nomenclature maybe to you. Otherwise known as historical science, its clear hypothesis made by historians, forensic scientists, detectives, archaeologists, evolutionists and the like use different criteria for assessment than the empirical scientist (called the ‘experimental scientist’ above). The historical scientist can use the laboratory for experimental validation of hypothesis, but they are still assessing their theories on either Bayeseon formulae or with inference to the best explanation

The distinction between the two ways of doing science gives us opportunity to see where an explanation such as “God did it” may become acceptable. This distinction helps us to see that one way of doing science (empirical) interacts with God’s secondary causation and concurrence, where the other way of doing science (historical) can include God’s primary causation or intervening miracle. In experimental or empirical science where results can be demonstrated repeatedly one does not expect to find God performing miracles because God’s usual method of operating is through secondary causes. In origin or historical science one can expect rare instances of primary causation.

Re 5:

Any half-baked logician can see that this teleological argument (see * above) is logically valid – that is it is both informally and formally valid. Therefore, the truth of the conclusion relies on whether physical necessity and chance are sufficiently ruled out as explanatory options. The crucial premise is then the second – no matter what order its in!

In this form the argument is a summary of Dembski’s design detection method and I don’t believe he has given that up.

Bayes’s Theorem in the double asterisk (I suppose is what you are referring to as the “mathematical formulation”) is not relevant at all to the teleological argument.

Re 6:

A simple “god did it” science stopping answer in these gaps just can’t compare.

Underlying your comment here is the idea that God is not an exciting notion and does not inspire enthusiasm or scientific motivation. I’ll let this go for now.

I think you are just really exposing your wishful thinking here as these things are not considered (by scientists) as outside science.

Speculating on what was the cause of the universe, assuming the standard big bang model, and on what bought the universe into being simply cannot be a scientific endeavour. The scientist seeks to discover the laws and patterns that make up the universe, but those laws break down as time approaches 0. When the universe sprung into being, all the laws were birthed as it were. So beyond the initial singularity where no physical thing or natural law exists, the scientist, if he is to strictly stay within the bounds of his discipline, must be silent.

Stepping “outside science” is stepping into philosophy where metaphysics can freely be discussed. I think what you’ll find is these “very structured scientific ideas” are really metaphysical in nature and rightly belong to the philosophers discipline, not the scientists. Cosmology as a branch of science is a new one, but as a branch of philosophy is very old. It is a strange case where one is easily confused with the other.

Developments in contemporary cosmology outlined thus far may strike you as utterly wild speculation, having little or nothing to do with empirical natural science, even if it originates with professional astrophysicists. Indeed, it is just that! . . . They exist before and beyond our spacetime system in a time prior to the beginning of our time and in a space beyond and outside out space, so we can never observe them. They are supernatural realities, if real at all, that transcend our system of nature or spacetime. If they exist, they are supernatural other worlds. Even science, if this is science, cannot get along without the supernatural. As philosophical postulates or explanatory hypotheses, their reality (or lack thereof) can be considered and debated . . . Obviously, any explanatory appeal to realities that transcend our spacio-temroal natural order of things always leaves empirical natural science far behind. Hereafter, “scientific” cosmology will appear in quotes.

Rem Blanchard Edwards, What Caused the Big Bang? (Rodopi, 2001) p. 261-262

Re 7:

I really don’t agree with you on that last sentence – “My personal opinion is that a theistic belief would actually get in the way of that awe.”

That aside I’m with you on the rest. I just wonder why the atheist can see the order and beauty of the laws that govern the universe and fail to ask why the laws are there in the first place?

Dear Bnonn

Philosophical (Theologian’s) Point of View of Cosmos:

The Human Body (Microcosm) is said to be small sample of the cosmos (Macrocosm). Whatever is visible/invisible in the gigantic cosmos is present within this tiny human body.

When your eye turns inward in the brain and you see the firmament within, and your spirit leaves the body and rises upward, you will see the Akash in which is located Sahas-dal-kanwal, the thousand petals of which perform the various functions pertaining to the three worlds. Its effulgence will exhilarate your spirit. You will at that stage, witness Niranjan, the lord of three worlds. Several religions which attained this stage and took the deity hereof to be the lord of all, were duped. Seeing the light and refulgence of this region they felt satiated. Their progress was stopped. They did not find the guide to higher regions. Hence they could not proceed further.
At the apex of this Akash, there is a passage which is very small like the eye of a needle. Your Surat (spirit) should penetrate this eye. Further on, there is Banknal, the crooked path, which goes straight and then downward and again upwards. Beyond this passage comes the second stage.

Trikuti (Region having three prominences) is situated here. It is one Lakhi Yojan2 in length and one Lakh Yojan in width. There are numerous varieties of glories and spectacles at that plane which are difficult to describe. Thousands of suns and moons look pale in comparison to the light there. All the time, melodious sounds of Ong Ong and Hoo Hoo, and the sounds resembling thunder of clouds, reverberate there. On attaining this region, the spirit becomes very happy, and purified and subtle.

From here onward, it becomes cognizant of the spiritual regions.

After having enjoyed the bliss of this region for some time, the spirit goes up one crorel Yojans and reaches Sunn, the third stage. Mohammedan Fagirs (Saints) bare called it “Lahoot.” It is indescribable. Here, the spirits enjoy great beatitude. The refulgence of this region is twelve times that of Trikuti.

Pure pools of ambrosia, called . “Mansarovar”, abound here. There are innumerable flower pots and gardens. Spirits,, like beauties, dance at various places. There are pleasing and sweet victuals, all savoury and fresh, and sonorous and musical strains can be heard every where. All this bliss can be experienced by the spirit only when it reaches there. It cannot be described. At every place, fountains of nectar are at play; in other words, pools of nectar are overflowing and streams of nectar are gushing out. How can one describe the splendour and decoration of this region ? There are platforms of diamonds, beds of emeralds and plants of jewels, all studded with rubies and precious stones. Bejewelled fish, swimming in pools there, display their beauty and ornamentation and their glitter and sheen attract attention. Beyond this, there are innumerable palaces of caystals and mirrors, in which spirit enities reside at their respective spots, as allocated by the Lord. They witness and exhibit ever changing revels. In Hindi, they have been described as “Hansa Mandlies”. The decoration and embellishment of these regions can be appreciated only by seeing them. The entire creation there is purely spiritual. It is Free from material constituents. The denizens, there, are spiritual and free from
physical taints. Full particulars of these regions are known only to Sants. It is not meet to describe them in greater detail.

Having sojourned there and having enjoyed the glory thereof for a very long time, the spirit of ` this Faqir moved on, in accordance with the instructions of the Guides. After traversing five arab and seventy-five crore yojans upward, the spirit entity effected ingress into the bounds of Hahoot and witnessed the panorama of that region. There an expanse of ten Neel is enveloped in darkness.

The depth of this dark region cannot be fathomed. The spirit went down one kharao yojans, still the bottom was nowhere to be found. Then the spirit turned upward and proceeded on the path chalked out by Guru. It was not considered advisable to go down right to the bottom of this region I his region is called Maha-sunn There are four extremely subtle sub-regions there, the secrets whereof have not been revealed by any Sant. There are prison cells for the condemned spirits, ejected from the court of the True Supreme Being. Although these spirits are not subjected to any trouble and they perform their functions by their own light, yet, as they do not get the Darshan of the Lord, they are restless. However, there is a way of their remission also. Whenever Sants happen to pass that way with spirits reclaimed from the lower regions, some of these spirits fortunately get Their Darshan. Such spirits go along with the Sants who very gladly take them to the court of the Lord and get them pardoned.

The spirit, thereafter, went to Hootal Hoot, which, in Hindi, has been described as Bhanwargupha. There is a rotating swing here which is all the time in subtle motion, and the spirits ever swing on it. All round, there are innumerable spiritual islands from which the sounds of “Sohang Sohang” and “Anahoo Anahoo” rise all the time. Spirit entities playfully and rapturously enjoy these sounds. Other characteristics of this region cannot be reduced to writing, as they can be realized by the spirit only when it reaches there by performing Abhyas. Hence it is necessary to continue the practice of this mode of devotion and it is called the Shabd (sound) practice. Do not give it up.

Having witnessed the spectacle of this region, the spirit entity proceeded upward and went on ascending. Whiffs of scents of various kinds and sweet fragrance of sandal were enjoyed by the spirit and the melodies of flutes were heard, while it proceeded onward. On crossing this plane, the spirit entity reached the outpost of Sat Lok, where melodious sounds or “Sat Sat” and “Haq Haq” were heard coming out of the Bin’. On hearing this, the spirit penetrated further rapturously.

There rose to view silver and golden streams full of nectar, and vast gardens, each tree there of being one crore-Yojans in height. Crores of suns and moons hang from them as flowers and fruits. Innumerable spirits and Hansas sing, chatter and play on those reel like birds. The wondrous beauty of this region 1s ineffable. While enjoying it, the spirit entered Sat and came into the presence of Sat Purush.

Now as regards the glory of the person of Sat Purush, each hair of His is so brilliant that crores of suns and moons look pale in comparison. When such is the refulgence of each hair, how is it possible to describe the glory of all His hair, and where are the words to describe the beauty and glory of His entire person ? How can one describe His eyes, nose, ears, face, hands and feet ? They are all nothing but refulgence ; even to describe them as oceans of refulgence does not give even he remotest idea.

The expanse of Sat Lok is one padam Palang, a palang being equal to Triloki in vastness. Hence it is -difficult to imagine the stupendous vastness of Sat Lok. here dwell spirit entities called Hansas who enjoy the Darshan of Sat Purush, hear the music of the Bin and -partake of ambrosial food.

After witnessing the glory of this region, the spirit proceeded to Alakh Lok and got Darshan of Alakh -Purush. The expanse of this region is one sankh, and each hair of Alakh Purush has the effulgence of arab kharab suns.

Thereafter the spirit entity went on and attained gam Lok, which is Maha Sankh4 Palang in expanse and the magnitude of the person of Again Purush equals crore Sankhs. The forms of Hansas of this region are amazingly wondrous, and the state of ecstasy and bliss that obtains there passes description. The spirit entity sojourned there for a long time and, on going beyond, it got the Darshan of Radhasoami, that is, Anami Purush, and merged in Him. Radhasoami Dham is boundless, infinite, endless and immeasurable. It is the fm ma Nij Sthan, the special resting place of Sants. (Fagirs). That region is the Ultima Thule of all Sants and all speech and description end here. I also conclude here..

Many more views to follow.

Anirudh Kumar Satsangi, what you’ve just posted is a very large amount of gibberish. If you wish to comment in future, please post a reasoned presentation of your view, outlining the major points and arguing for them. There is really nothing in what you’re posting which I can respond to, since it is just so much unintelligible nonsense. Except for, maybe, when you say that “The Human Body (Microcosm) is said to be small sample of the cosmos (Macrocosm). Whatever is visible/invisible in the gigantic cosmos is present within this tiny human body.” This is just obviously false. No such thing is said at all. Stars are visible in the cosmos; they aren’t present in the human body. Similarly most of the elements, black holes, quasars and heaven knows what else.

So I reiterate, quoting directly from the notice immediately above this combox: We’ll sponsor any comment, either positive or negative, which increases the quality of the article by expanding the discussion it initiates. We won’t sponsor comments which are poorly-considered, hastily-worded, abusive, already-answered, off-topic, long-winded, profane, or which otherwise constitute spam in some way.

Regards,
Bnonn

Stuart I think you have misunderstood or missed many of my points – and for ideological reasons you of course won’t accept much of what I say – no matter what evidence I provide. However, this is not the place for detailed refutations and I will continue to discuss various of these points in my blog. I think discussion is often wasted in comments sections which few people actually read. So, I will limit myself to just a few comments here.

Dembski did in fact dispense with the Explanatory Filter on his blog “Uncommon Descent” several months ago. However, with typical capriciousness (and no explanatory justification), and conceit, he has now (December 10) reinstated it – saying “On further reflection, I think the Explanatory Filter ranks among the most brilliant inventions of all time (right up there with sliced bread). I’m herewith reinstating it — it will appear, without reservation or hesitation, in all my future work on design detection.” The lack of explanation has left his readers rather lost. The three steps I referred to were the steps of the “filter” – and the mathematics was that used by Dembski. I repeat that the filter is easily proven to be naively wrong simply by altering the order of Dembskis three steps as any explanation (design, inherent, chance) can be made the default one.

“God did it” is not a satisfactory explanation – because it has no more structure or explanatory power than “fairies did it.” I have no objection to incorporating a god (or fairies) in a detailed, structured explanation with the same requirement of verification, etc., as other scientific explanations. Scientists do not go around “ruling out the existence of god” if only because gods are (these days) never postulated as genuine scientific explanations. When they are they will of course be subject to the same scrutiny as other aspects of a scientific explanation.

You have misunderstood my point about use value.

“The scientist seeks to discover the laws and patterns that make up the universe, but those laws break down as time approaches 0.” That is illogical and used opportunistically to justify your denial of science’s role in investigating the origins of the universe. Science is about investigating the unknown – in studying those areas where existing “laws” no longer apply. We have done this again and again – Newton, Einsten, etc. That is where the real progress is made. Whatever your desires science is, and will continue to, investigating these areas. And it has made far more progress here than any philosopher or theologian. You can determine this by looking at the evidence (I can suggest some reading for you if you desire it) – rather than relying on arbitrary quotes supplied for copy and pasting.

I can only repeat, and from the perspective of 40 years of participating in active scientific research, that your distinction between experimental and origins science is rubbish. Your claim is completely aimed at justifying your rejection of a huge amount of well accepted scientific knowledge. However, most, if not all scientists actually do historical and experimental research at the same time. In fact, to be pedantic we could say that all research is historical because we (almost?) never observe mechanisms directly (even if they occur in the lab during the experiment) but must deduce them from actually measuring resulting effects. To be consistent you should reject all scientific knowledge for this reason.

I will probably get into covering some of the other mistakes in your article by posting on Open Parachute in the New Year.

Summer Solstice and New Year greetings to everyone here.

Re Dembski’s rejection of the Design Filter or EF – This is what he said back in March:

“I’ve pretty much dispensed with the EF. It suggests that chance, necessity, and design are mutually exclusive. They are not. Straight CSI is clearer as a criterion for design detection.”

Hello Ken,

What Dembski has or has not done is irelevant to the teleological argument as stated above. It is logically air-tight.

“God did it” is not a satisfactory explanation – because it has no more structure or explanatory power than “fairies did it.”

Your repeating your mistakes. On the contrary the concept of God is very well structured. In terms of the beginning of the universe for instance God certainly does have great explanatory power, as well as explanatory scope, plausibility, less degree of ad hocness (from the bloated ontology of the world-ensemble hypothesis for instance), and is in accord with accepted beliefs. Using these criteria for evaluating different models gives an indication which has comparative superiority.

I’m planning on doing an article on the cosmological arguments soon so I’ll save my jibe about fairies. It’s enough to say for now that the comment isn’t well thought through.

That is illogical and used opportunistically to justify your denial of science’s role in investigating the origins of the universe.

There is not incoherence there. What is illogical is that you think you can discover what the universe was like, when there was no universe (on the standard Big Bang model). The quote, far from being arbitrary, emphasised my point that science has little to do with investigation into the beginning of the universe where t = 0. Newton and Einstein were both working within the universe where the laws were already in place ready to be uncovered so as examples they are spurious.

That [science] is where the real progress is made. Whatever your desires science is, and will continue to, investigating these areas. It has made far more progress here than any philosopher or theologian.

You think what scientists are doing is science when its actually more like philosophy.

I can only repeat . . . that your distinction between experimental and origins science is rubbish.

This really does show an ignorance on your part with the philosophy of science. That distinction is well documented within the literature. Your failure to see the distinction is a failure to open your parachute (pun intended).

Ah, what joy there is in dogma. It means you can ignore facts and stick to your own story. Accusing me of ignorance in a field that I have a lot of experience with (if only because of age) is hardly honest interaction.

I made this offer : “You can determine this by looking at the evidence (I can suggest some reading for you if you desire it) – rather than relying on arbitrary quotes supplied for copy and pasting.” Do you want to take it up.? would you like me to provide book and lecture titles?

Re Dembski’s EF. Consider this
Step 1: Do you have proof that it was designed? No
Step 2: Do you have proof that it couldn’t exist any other way? No.
Step 3. It must therefore have arisen by chance.

Hardly an “air tight” argument and no self-respecting scientist would accept it. Yet all I have done is stated the EF in a slightly different order. It basically a very dishonest (and naive) bit of arguing. Dembski partly admitted this problem when he disowned it in March.

I look forward to your article on the cosmological arguments and will, no doubt, take issue with you then. This (the science of this) is of interest to me.

Ken,

From your comments its clear to me that you are not familiar with the philosophy of science, and it seems to me you confuse science for philosophy of science which is a distinguishable field that interacts and evaluates the discipline of science.

Accusing me of dogma, is therefore rich. I’m reminded of Rom 2:1

You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgement of someone else, for at whatever point to judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgement do the same things.

I don’t know how I got saddled with Dembski’s argument above. The logically air tight argument is the following.

(1) The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
(2) It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
(3) Therefore, it is due to design.

“I don’t know how I got saddled with Dembski’s argument above.” – well you admitted it before: “In this form the argument is a summary of Dembski’s design detection method and I don’t believe he has given that up. “

I stand by my experience with science and its philosophy. What one should remember is that there are many philosophies – and I often find that when people talk about “the philosophy of science” they actually mean their own private, pet philosophy (or theology). There are “philosophers of science” that I agree with and there are those I passionately disagree with. That is perfectly natural and to be expected.

I am sure my “philosophy of science” conflicts with yours (in fact this dispute (even about Dembskis’s design filter) surely shows that. My realist philosophical attitude is highly integrated with practice – with scientific method and scientific knowledge itself. That’s why I can see the bunkum in your classification of historical and experimental science.

By the way – one mark of dogmatist is often irrelevant quotes – especially from sources like the Bible, Mao’s Little Red Book, or the Collected Works of V. I. Lenin.

Ken,

Of course we have our own take on what constitutes a good philosophy of science, but lets be clear it is the philosophical level we are engaged in before we start talking.

Surely your philosophical system is astute enough to know that mockery is not refutation. You have yet to give any good argument as to why there is no distinguishing between historical and empirical science. As an advocate of the distinction I can clearly see the differences between the two.

One begins with observation, and one lacks observation and so begins the scientific process with positing an explanatory model. One deals with repeatable, regularly recurring events or patterns within nature (e.g., the relationship between pressure, temperature, volume in a gas), and the other deals with non-repeatable past singularities (e.g., the origin of the universe, crime scene investigation, first life).

With the distinction made placing God in a gap may well be justified in historical science if it surpasses all other naturalistic hypothesis, explains all relevant data, and renders the data we do have tremendously improbable had God not performed a miracle.

“I don’t know how I got saddled with Dembski’s argument above.” – well you admitted it before: “In this form the argument is a summary of Dembski’s design detection method and I don’t believe he has given that up.”

I also agree that the argument you showed above is awful. But that is not the argument I have been referring to. A good summary of the Dembski argument I do like is found here:

www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5172

Dear Bnonn

My post is neither gibberish nor unintelligible nonsence. The analogy of microcosm with macrocosm is also correct. If you deeply and thoroughly study various Indian Systems of Yoga then surely you will change your views on it. Since the beginning of human civilization seers, sages, saints etc. have practiced Yoga for the knowledge of ultimate reality. This is the highest level of experimentation. Theologians’ views are the result of such experimentation.
However, philosophers’ (arm chair thinkers) views are based on intuition which may sometimes not be correct. My above post, however it is long, is the theologian’s view point and is correct. Results from scientific discoveries confirm it.

Thanks, regards and wish you all a very happy New Year.

Anirudh Kumar Satsangi,

Your topic is neither germane to the article nor the following discussion. May I suggest you hold on to your comments and post them when I get to the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Results from scientific discoveries confirm it.

This claim I will be interested in following up with you, and I will be asking which scientific discoveries in particular confirm what in particular.

This post has been removed by an editor for violating the commenting guidelines.

“Surely your philosophical system is astute enough to know that mockery is not refutation.” Thanks for accepting that I have a legitimate philosophy and right to speak from that perspective. Take your point on mockery – Its always best to explain things rather than use derogatory labels or bald statements. But let’s face it mockery is often the best way to respond to derogatory aspersions (eg the “scientism” label) or unsubstantiated & outrageous claims (like your imposed difference between “experimental” and “historical” science).

Art least you now attempt to justify that distinction this way:
“One begins with observation, and one lacks observation and so begins the scientific process with positing an explanatory model. One deals with repeatable, regularly recurring events or patterns within nature (e.g., the relationship between pressure, temperature, volume in a gas), and the other deals with non-repeatable past singularities (e.g., the origin of the universe, crime scene investigation, first life).”

This reveals a lack of experience of the scientific process. In fact we always start with empirical evidence (observation). This may (and should ) lead to a hypothesis which then suggests searching for other evidence – or doing the experiment. Where things have happened in the past “nature” has done the experiment – we now find the evidence that has producerd.

For example the evidence of molecular biology over a range of individuals and species, or even the existence of specific characteristics in existing species) are starting points for understanding what happened during the evolutionary process. Our hypothesis suggest the existence of, for example, :”genetic fossils” in the DNA of existing species – and how these may have changed over time. We check that with further investigation of DNA. This has proved to be a very powerful method of investigating the evolutionary past of existing species.

This is a far cry from your claim that one “begins the scientific process with positing an explanatory model.” It might appear that way if you ignore (through your inexperience) all that has gone before. These hypotheses don’t appear out of a vacuum.

As for repeatability. What do you think is happening at the LHC? Why do we say that this research is helping us understand what occurred during the so-called “big bang.”? Why do you think we change our theories (the “big bang” theory is not what it used to be)? Because of new evidence – often obtained in the “laboratory” via experimentation.

My experience has been that we very often investigate “non-repeatable past singularities” – via the currently existing evidence and experimental verification of components of that process.

Now all this is a hell of a lot more powerful, as a way of understanding reality, than placing a vague god, fairies or anything else in a gap and considering it closed while ignoring the abundant current existing evidence.

Ken,

Conversely this reveals a lack in philosophical sophistication.

In fact we always start with empirical evidence (observation).

The very origin of the universe was not observed, neither was the past macro-evolutionary scheme, and many other historical type models.

The model is confirmed by what is observed in nature now and with the help of empirical science performing repeatable demonstrable tests. For instance the expansion of the universe and the microwave background radiation, etc., all confirmed the model of the beginning of the universe.

The LHC cannot itself explain the very origin of the singularity when t = 0. Only the conditions after the initial stages can science then have any platform to operate. In your own words the LHC is ‘helping us understand what occurred during the so-called “big bang.”’

As for God plugging the gap there I’ve just posted an overview of the Kalam Cosmological argument.

“I also agree that the argument you showed above is awful. But that is not the argument I have been referring to” – am glad you agree that Dembski’s EF is demonstrably “awful.

But it is exactly the same as that described in Craig’s review of Dembski’s book you link to. As Craig makes clear, the 10 points programme in essence condenses to 1: Natural law (my inherent), 2: Chance & 3: design. Of course Craig wants to exclude 1 and 2 (by hand waving essentially) and then prove design by default.

Dembski’s specific complexity and EF are just great tools for those with ideological prejudices. They can be used, by suitable rearrangement of 1, 2 & 3 to “prove” design, inherent or chance – by making them the default choice.

As I said, no scientist would be allowed by her colleagues to get away with such a dishonest procedure. She would be told to go back and do the work – collect the evidence.

Ken,

In the article I linked to Craig was not laying out a design argument, but review Dembski’s book, design inference, and logic. In the end, he concludes, it comes out unscathed. It was obviously not the burden of his article there to show that physical necessity and chance were ruled out. That is the burden for elsewhere in his writings. So the charge of hand-waving is wholly inappropriate.

Syllogistically what does it matter if physical necessity or chance replace design? The point is design is there, and physical necessity and chance are ruled out with further argumentation.

As a syllogism the EF argument you presented was awful, but its clear it not the same. I’ll lay out the comparison side by side for you.

Dembski’s EF (as you stated it)
(1) There is no proof that x was designed.
(2) There is no proof that x could exist any other way (chance, physical necessity)
(3) Therefore, x must have arisen by chance.

This is logically invalid. Its obvious that (3) doesn’t arise from (1) and (2). What leads from (1) and (2) is (3′) there is no proof that x arose by chance, physical necessity or design.

The teleological argument trilemma
(1) The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
(2) It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
(3) Therefore, it is due to design.

This argument however is logically valid. And if you want to prove for instance that the fine-tuning of the universe was due to design, then go right ahead and construct your own trilemma and prove the premises. If fact I’ll construct it for you with the reminder that this is not a scientific theory, hypothesis or method, but a philosophical argument using the strict rules of logic.

The argument for the universe’s physical necessity
(1) The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
(2) It is not due to design or chance.
(3) Therefore, it is due to physical necessity.

My own modification of Dembski’s EF (as you stated it) goes like this.

Stuart’s EF
(1) There are independent reasons to think that x was designed.
(2) There is no proof that x could exist any other way (chance, physical necessity)
(3”) Therefore, it is epistemically permissible to assume that x arose by design.

Now this argument is logically valid, but I can hardly see it being used by a scientist to justify design. I would agree that in the endeavour of science naturalistic alternatives should be preferred, but the absence of proof for chance or physical necessity leaves us without any solid conclusion either way, and as absolute truth and falsehood allude us we are free to speculate, thus (3”).

I guess this demonstrates the lack of experience in practical science. One can put up a “logically valid” proposition (those you have done are still the 3 steps of Dembskis EF I have used) but it is meaningless because 2 glaringly obvious facts remain.

1:The order actually determines the default conclusion – without providing any evidence at all for it. (this isn’t honest!)
2: The hand-waving (inevitable when people want to “prove” a preconceived position) is your statement 2 “It is not due to physical necessity or chance.” One can only make that decision using evidence and proper verification – yet in all the uses of these arguments this is more or less assumed (at least for inherent or physical necessity).

I repeat – a very dishonest procedure. One should always follow the evidence, all the evidence, wherever it leads. The ID people should simply concentrate on that – evidence for design – instead of relying on childish default arguments. Why don’t they.

Ken,

Your proficiency in logic leaves much to be desired. It troubles me how you can’t see what I myself see is glaringly obvious: that Dembski’s EF (as you stated it) is different from The teleological argument trilemma and that the difference is itself glaringly obvious: one is logically invalid the other is logically valid.

Re 1: By no means is design a default position, but one arrived at by the premises. So the preconception of design, if there is one (which I don’t think is necessary) is irrelevant. The order of the premises in the trilemma makes no difference to the conclusion (3).

To avoid conclusion (3) there are options: break the trilemma (i.e., prove (1) incorrect) or give evidence for physical necessity or chance (i.e., give reasons to think that (2) is false).

Re 2: There is no hand-waving, for no actual supplementary arguments have yet been presented to rule out the explanatory options of chance and physical necessity. I agree we need to look at the evidence we do have. If the evidence shows that it cannot be due to physical necessity or chance, then logically it must arrive at design. The “design detection method” is exactly that – a method used to detect design (once the evidence is in).

So as for your two ‘glaringly obvious’ facts, 1 is not glaring obvious and I’ll go so far as to say demonstrably false, and as for 2 I’ve always agreed we look at the evidence to rule out the other explanatory options. We then use logic to see where the conclusion takes us and if it is to design, so be it.

“If the evidence shows that it cannot be due to physical necessity or chance, then logically it must arrive at design. The “design detection method” is exactly that – a method used to detect design (once the evidence is in).” – the fallacy is that whenever this is seriously applied the evidence may well indicate physical necessity. Usually we can deal with chance by statistical analysis (and we do all the time) but physical necessity may we require intensive research. In other words – I don’t think we can honestly say that a phenomena is not a reflection of physical necessity when we are ignorant. All we can say (honestly) is “I don’t know.” and if we are really honest we add “Let’s find out”.

This is clearly shown by examples of Behe’s “irreducible” complexity. He would have been more honest to say about the bacterial flagellum (for example) “I don’t know how this arrangement arose” rather than claim it for design. Subsequent research has provided a lot of insight into the evolution of these things. So Behe has been caught out in the classic “god of the gaps” situation and only ended up discrediting his relgious approach.

That, to me is the fate of Dembski’s approach (and ID in general) because it relies on claiming gaps in know for their god.

I don’t think my logic is faulty – and, might I say, my comments on Dembski’s arguments are very commonly also expressed by evolutionary scientists. So I am not alone.

I’ll respond to your cosmological “big bang” arguments in comments on Kalam Cosmological argument. However, it seems you might now accept my comments on your differentiation of “experimental” and “historical” science. That in fact our methodology in both is the same. As you say – “The very origin of the universe was not observed, neither was the past macro-evolutionary scheme, and many other historical type models.” But in my experience the very mechanisms I studied, contemporaneously, in the laboratory were not observed either. I observed and measured the resulting products, deduced mechanism, proposed hypotheses and did further work to map my ideas against reality. This is what we do in all science.

the fallacy is that whenever this is seriously applied the evidence may well indicate physical necessity. Usually we can deal with chance by statistical analysis (and we do all the time) but physical necessity may we require intensive research. In other words – I don’t think we can honestly say that a phenomena is not a reflection of physical necessity when we are ignorant. All we can say (honestly) is “I don’t know.” and if we are really honest we add “Let’s find out”.

Well that’s not a fallacy, but point taken. But it may well be in the fine-tuning of the universe for instance, that the fine-tuning cannot be suppressed. If there are fifty or so physical constants that require fine-tuning, and more being uncovered everyday, and if say, the hope for Theory of Everything will (i) only suppress three of so of these constants and (ii) require fine-tuning itself, then a design hypothesis is in order.

However, it seems you might now accept my comments on your differentiation of “experimental” and “historical” science. That in fact our methodology in both is the same. As you say – “The very origin of the universe was not observed, neither was the past macro-evolutionary scheme, and many other historical type models.” But in my experience the very mechanisms I studied, contemporaneously, in the laboratory were not observed either. I observed and measured the resulting products, deduced mechanism, proposed hypotheses and did further work to map my ideas against reality. This is what we do in all science.

I agree that by compounding the two we come come up with a good method. For instance the crime scene investigator will do an experiment to see if the mechanism of the force of an old woman’s arm is enough to lift and strike out with the heavy wrench to cause the collapse of a skull. Very well. But the distinction is still there. The scientist is using experimental science to discover if the naturalistic hypothesis (made by proposing an explanatory model, i.e., historical/orgin science) is plausible.

Now it may be the case, in instances of rare unrepeatable events, such as the resurrection of Christ, that given the evidence, a super-natural hypothesis is the most plausible. In the science lab I suppose, with experimental science, you could test the plausibility of a naturalistic hypothesis by investigating the area of spontaneous regeneration of dead organisms from the dead. If you could discover a naturalistic alternative, then you may have defeated the best explanation, but in the absence of one, its wholly plausible that, given the explanatory power and the background knowledge that God did raise Jesus from the dead.

Stuart – could you help me with references to your distinction between “historical” and “experimental” science – You say “That distinction is well documented within the literature.”

Could you point me to that literature – particularly and scientific or philosophical journals. Links you personally consider authoritative on this would be useful.

I may have been over zealous in saying this was “well documented in the literature.” On further research it is the Witworth College philosophy professor Stephen C. Meyer who has made the distinction. Nevertheless, the distinction holds and is discussed in the following:

Moreland, J. P. Christianity and the Nature of Science: A Philosophical Investigation (Grand Rapids, Mich., Baker, 1989)

Ratzsch, Del. Science and Its Limits: The Natural Sciences in Christian Perspective (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 2000)

J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, Il.: InterVarsity Press, 2003)

Also recommended:

Harre, Rom. The Philosophies of Science: An Introductory Survey. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972)

Further clarification: empirical science is also called “inductive,” “nomological” or “operation” science. Focuses on how the natural world operates in a repeatable and regular way. Historical science is also called “origin” and focuses on single, past events like the death of the dinosaurs, and seeks to explain how things came to be or why some event happened.

[...] this case the accuser (the author of the article The “god-of-the-gaps” argument at the NZ Christian Apologetics site Thinking Matters) presumably uses the label because he [...]

I haven’t read past the first section as two simple points render Stuart’s argument moot.

Firstly, gaps do not necessarily matter at all: Stuart’s “exercise” assumes that they always do.

You do not need to know how every lineage has evolved to know evolution is the mechanism used, and you do not need to know every “step” in a lineage to know that evolution has occurred.

Secondly, the first of the three points Stuart lists is an assertion, not a statement of truth. It’s accuracy depends on the word ‘how’, which can refer to different things, and the assertion is only true for some of them. If ‘how’ refers to “by evolution from common descent”, then it is a false assertion. If ‘how’ refers to “the specific molecular changes that have occurred that distinguish and/or isolate two lineages”, then it is false for some species, true for others. And so on, for other definitions of ‘how’.

This statement confuses two common and very simple errors of creationists arguing against evolution: (1) that species have evolved by common descent (which is well established) with the details of how each specific lineage has evolved, and (2) that not knowing the details of how every lineage, or any particular lineage, has evolved does not make that species have evolved by common descent wrong.

It does this, in part, by leaving out what is meant by ‘how’ undefined. By leaving it undefined the person using this “logic” is now free to mix the different meanings of ‘how’ in nonsensical ways. As I pointed out, the assertion is only true for some cases; not defining has Stuart and others who use it mixing the cases for which it is not true with those for which it is only sometimes true which will have the inevitable result of a nonsensical argument.

Given these, the rest is moot and not worth time.

(In any event, in addition to defining precisely what he means by ‘how’, Stuart needs to define precisely what he means by a ‘gap’: he hasn’t yet defined a sound starting point.)

I will close with this little thought: there are gaps in the bible. If you insist that gaps make something wrong, then you would have to conclude that the bible is wrong. (Of course, the answer is that it is not the gaps that matter, as I pointed out. This, however, makes Stuart’s argument unsound either way he tries.)

[...] elsewhere The "god-of-the-gaps" argument : Thinking Matters TalkGlobal Warming a New Religion : Thinking Matters TalkDawkins talks to Derren BrownGeologist coming [...]

Heraclides,

The discussion is on “the god-of-the-gaps argument” which is a variant of the argument from ignorance. Not on any specific gap. As I stated above,

As the argument from ignorance is an informal fallacy, there are some considerations that may render such an argument . . . justifiable.

The “how” I think you are referring to in the previous comment is merely an example of an argument where God is placed in the gap. I’m not advancing that argument at all. You should really read a bit more than the opening lines and consider what is written there before you make any comments, let alone judgements.

You haven’t actually addressed my points, but simply “defined” yours again, then implied mine is meaningless. I would remind you, as I have done before, that if the foundations of an argument are wrong, then anything that follows is moot, which is what you have done again.

I know it’s a variant of the “argument from ignorance”, that doesn’t change the meaning of what I wrote. I wasn’t ignorant of that: you said as much anyway in the first section, which I told you I had read. I don’t need to read the remainder given the final sentence of the first section. Go on, think why: you have already laid down the foundation for your argument and I know it’s wrong, so I deal with that rather than waste my time on things that are secondary to a false argument.

As I wrote, the gaps per se are irrelevant. You say gaps (or ignorance, missing information) make something false. If so, as the bible contains gaps, it must be false according to you. That’s fine with me, except it is based on the wrong thing: it’s not the gaps per se that matter, but the logic used to construct the conclusions.

That shouldn’t be difficult for anyone to see or work out, it’s almost common-sense.

But let me continue for a moment:

Not on any specific gap.

This says you have no argument. I could say “stories are false”. People would (rightfully) point out it depends on what is meant by story and until I defined that, I wouldn’t have anything useful to work from. Same for you.

Just as different meanings of ‘how’ alter the true of your statements, so do different meanings of ‘gap’, as they have different implications, just as in the simple(r) “story” example.

The “how” I think you are referring to in the previous comment is merely an example of an argument where God is placed in the gap.

You seem to be trying to foist this on me from thin air! Please show me where I have made this statement. I in fact gave possible explicit definitions ‘how’, none of them corresponding to this, but your (deliberately?) vague “in the previous comment” avoids specifying which if any instance of my use of the word “how” you are referring to. Wouldn’t be trying to frame me with something I didn’t say ;-)

an example of an argument where God is placed in the gap. I’m not advancing that argument at all.

You are, you said so explicitly yourself.

The “how” I think you are referring to in the previous comment is merely an example of an argument where God is placed in the gap. I’m not advancing that argument at all.

You are, you said so explicitly yourself.

I’m trying to make heads or tails of what your are talking about. Can you provide a quote of mine that shows the ‘how’ you are referring to? Also, can you provide a quote where I say explicitly I am advancing this particular argument?

Can you also explain what you mean by “the Bible has gaps?”
Can you also clarify if you have read the entire article (I don’t mean the comments) yet?

You have altered what. Let me repeat what I wrote:

an example of an argument where God is placed in the gap. I’m not advancing that argument at all.

You are, you said so explicitly yourself.

Note there is no The “how” I think you are referring to in the previous comment is merely in the quote.

What I wrote is quite obviously referring to “that argument”: “argument where God is placed in the gap”. It’s why I took care to remove the initial portion in the first place: to make my quote unambiguous. (Worded as you presented, it’s ambiguous.) Could I suggest, as I have before, that you try not to make people say things that they didn’t? Like almost every creationist I have “seen”, you do this constantly. It’s unconstructive at best, and is seen as disingenuous by those you are “debating” with.

Can you also explain what you mean by “the Bible has gaps?” I shouldn’t have to: it’s common knowledge, to say the least. Vast chunks of J.C.s life history are missing, ditto for every character in the stories. That is, the bible is not “complete” in the same way that you made out that evolutionary history is not “complete”.

(I’m not saying that I’m expecting every detail to be in the bible, I’m just making an observation about what is not there. No story or history is complete to every last detail, yet they (usually) can convey their story or history. In a casual way, you might want to consider that this illustrates a useful point. As I wrote before, it’s not the presence or absence of “gaps” per se that matter, what matters is the logic used to draw the conclusions.)

I would like to make clear that I’m not interested in being dragged into a sideline “debate” (which would only serve to avoid my points), so don’t bother nitpicking the bible example, the details don’t matter. I could choose any story or history to illustrate the underlying point, after all.

Can you also clarify if you have read the entire article (I don’t mean the comments) yet?

I told you before why that’s not relevant: I shouldn’t have to repeat myself, re-read my previous explanations. I get the distinct impression that you are using this as an excuse to avoid facing what I wrote, which I note you still haven’t addressed. It increasingly looks like you are stalling.

Heraclides,

This is no stalling tactic! This is a request for clarification

Secondly, the first of the three points Stuart lists is an assertion, not a statement of truth. It’s accuracy depends on the word ‘how’, which can refer to different things, . . . And so on, for other definitions of ‘how’.

What is the ‘how’ you are referring to? Please provide a quote of mine.

And until you clarify that you have read more than the first few paragraphs of the article, I’ve a mind to not respond to you at all.

Now you try point at a different reference to “how”, with a completely different context and try ask the same question!!! Read the full paragraph it comes from, it doesn’t need further explanation. All it does is point out that YOU have to define the “how” YOU mean precisely, as I have already explained to you.

And until you clarify that you have read more than the first few paragraphs of the article, I’ve a mind to not respond to you at all.

You have already had this explained to you, from the very first sentence I have written in this thread and elaborated further in a follow-up post. Yet you continue to try offer it as an excuse to duck addressing my points. So I’ll repeat the essence: If the foundation of an argument is wrong, then the rest is moot. That’s very, very simple, there is no way that you don’t understand that. Given that, the only way you can use this is as a cop-out. What’s so terrifying about my points that you can’t face them?

Heraclides, you have been warned in the past about your tone, and about your snarky psycho-analyzing. Further posts like these will be deleted.

Hereaclides,

Please provide a quote from the article that you think constitutes a wrong foundation. I honestly don’t know what your on about.

@47: (1) Science has yet to explain how the biological diversity of life on earth originated. This should be clear from my original post. (I did write the first of the three points Stuart lists, and give possible meanings for ‘how’, which can really could only fit this, and I did tell you I had only read the first part and this is the only “founding premise” there… etc, etc. I still can’t see how you honestly cannot figure this out. Maybe I’m used to figuring this sort of thing out for myself? Whatever, never mind me.)

Before I clarify by repeating a few points, the origin of the universe, etc., is quite separate from how the biological diversity of life on earth originated, which is what you say you wish to tackle. That phrase refers to how you go from one form of life, to many.

As I wrote before, your first statement ambiguous. You need to define precisely what you mean by ‘how’. I can’t be filling that in for you: asking me to this is both nonsensical and would have me doing something I don’t approve of.

I did list some possible definitions. These will make your argument false or moot (depending on what you choose) without having to look further. I didn’t expand on it as I considered the argument is easy enough to fill in. I didn’t pick one, although it seems easy enough to do, but invited you to state exactly what you meant.

I also pointed out it seemed to boil down to the same old thing I’ve seen time and time again:

This statement confuses two common and very simple errors of creationists arguing against evolution: (1) [confusing] that species have evolved by common descent (which is well established) with the details of how each specific lineage has evolved, and (2) that not knowing the details of how every lineage, or any particular lineage, has evolved does not make that species have evolved by common descent wrong.

If you don’t “get” why this is relevant, trying making a precise definition of ‘how’ and it should become immediately obvious. If you still don’t get it, then could I suggest you learn what is meant by evolution, as you cannot be understanding it in this case (you can’t make judgements about what you don’t understand, etc.)

Whatever you put afterwards won’t help if the founding premise or argument is flawed or inappropriate for what you seek to do.

@46:

So… you placed my posts on moderation for doing “snarky psycho-analyzing”?! Erm, that’s not what I did. If you like I’ll start doing that so that you understand the difference!! :-) Let me know and I’ll rip into it… Perhaps I could start with you… ;-) Seriously, I haven’t time, and anyway it’s not really something I’m into.

I was forced to repeat myself, and quite annoyingly for me. He kept asking me to define ‘how’, but I can’t be in the position of putting words in his mouth, anymore than you (or anyone else) can tell me what my opinion is (or I can tell you want you opinions are).

More practically I will have to let this go as I have too much on my plate. I hope someone else can take up my point that once you define ‘how’ precisely, the initial statement is either false or moot because it fails to address what Stuart wants addressed.

You should remember that creationists have been trying for over a hundred years to come up with a plausible, serious alternative to evolution and have not succeeded. You wouldn’t be trying yourself otherwise. The “arguments” are very well-known and you should have the modesty to realise that your amateur “philosophy” is hardly likely to improve on things as they stand.

One of the key aims of forming the DI (not necessarily explicitly stated) was to “find evidence”, which is to make a tactic admission, by leading creationists, that they had no substantial argument to offer the scientific community. In its place are various attempts to assert ID/creationist as correct by fait (which deserve ridicule, ditto for dismissing evolutionary theory by fait), repeating variations on the old arguments (which is what I see here), and rare attempts to mangle science à la Behe et al (which get thoroughly dismantled, and rightly). All these attempts are there because creationists still need to present something that is substantial enough to stand on its own.

Heraclides,

(1) Science has yet to explain how the biological diversity of life on earth originated. This should be clear from my original post. (I did write the first of the three points Stuart lists, and give possible meanings for ‘how’, which can really could only fit this, and I did tell you I had only read the first part and this is the only “founding premise” there.

Thank you for providing a quote of mine from the article of the “how” you were referring to in your comments. Now I am clear I can comment with confidence.

I am not advancing the argument for the origin of the biological diversity of life. I am writing on the god-of-the-gaps argument, which is another name for argument from ignorance. As premise (1) was simply used in an example of an argument that committed the informal fallacy it is not a founding premise to the article. The article is summed up here.

As the argument from ignorance is an informal fallacy, there are some considerations that may render such an argument, specifically in the case of premise (2) justifiable. Let us look at some.

Following are points 1 through 12.

Before I clarify by repeating a few points, the origin of the universe, etc., is quite separate from how the biological diversity of life on earth originated, which is what you say you wish to tackle.

I explicitly said I wished to specifically address premise (2) – that the gaps must be filled by God. I think by failing to read beyond the first few paragraphs you failed to pick this up and wasted your own time responding here.

Please be clear. I’m not “side-stepping” – its just a fact – I’m not advancing that argument here. It was never a main point.

explicitly said I wished to specifically address premise (2) – that the gaps must be filled by G-d. I think by failing to read beyond the first few paragraphs you failed to pick this up and wasted your own time responding here.

No, you are missing what I did.

If its an informal fallacy and fails at premise 1, there is nothing you can do to save it by exploring the second premise. Since you said at the end of first section (as you quoted) that you were going to look at step 2 only I backtracked, etc. to see if you could step past step 1, i.e. that it’s useful to even look at step 2 like that.

I realised the example was a fallacy (of course), but you claimed it failed at step 2: I pointed out it failed before then, so looking at step 2 is moot.

You seem to be trying to play a very bizarre game of “I know this doesn’t work as steps 1 through to 3 (it’s an informal fallacy, as you say). I’ll not mention (or not realise) that step 1 fails, look at step 2 then say that I’ve come up with something that makes it meaningful”. It’s illogical. If step 1 fails, you’re shot. It’s a like magician’s trick of distracting people from the real action. You tried to say “the bit that fails is step 2, we must work on that”, trying to focus people’s attention on that, but didn’t say that if it fails on step 1, whatever you do with step 2 is pointless and a waste of your time.

By showing that it fails at step 1, it shows that exploration of step 2 was irrelevant. You need to have an example where step 1 is sound, then you can look at “there are some considerations that may render such an argument, specifically in the case of premise (2) justifiable”.

It doesn’t matter at all what order step (1) and (2) are in. And it doesn’t matter that both steps fail in your view. It was used as an example – a springboard into discussion centred on a host of arguments that posit god in the gaps where there is scientific ignorance. Its not a magicians trick. There’s no conspiracy.