From “Intelligent Design: a Theological and Philosophical Analysis” by Erkki Vesa Rope Kojonen the Journal of Analytic Theology
Abstract: “The “God of the gaps” critique is one of the most common arguments against design arguments in biology, but is also increasingly used as a critique of other natural theological arguments. In this paper, I analyze four different critiques of God of the gaps arguments and explore the relationship between gaps arguments and similar limit arguments. I conclude that the critique of the God of the gaps is substantially weaker than is commonly assumed, and dismissing ID́s biological arguments should rather be based on criticizing the premises of these arguments.”
Good luck with that. The main purpose of God of the Gaps arguments has been to signal that the academic, usually a self-proclaimed Christian, doesn’t accept any evidence for intelligence in or behind nature. ID godfather Phillip Johnson caught on to that a while back:
“I do not think that the mind can serve two masters, and I am confident that whenever the attempt is made, naturalism in the end will be the true master and theism will have to abide by its dictates. If the blind watchmaker thesis is true, then naturalism deserves to rule, but I am addressing those who think the thesis is false, or at least are willing to consider the possibility that it may be false.
Such persons need to be willing to challenge false doctrines, not on the basis of prejudice or blind adherence to a tradition, but with clear-minded, reasoned arguments. They also need to be working on a positive understanding of a theistic view of reality, one that allows natural science to find its proper place as an important but not all-important part of the life of the mind.” – Johnson P.E., Darwin on Trial, Second Edition, 1993, Inter Varsity Press, Illinois, p. 169
It often doesn’t appear to matter much whether the anti-ID arguments make sense. They read more like signals that one will ultimately accept naturalism as the correct explanation of the human condition, as long as theism is still technically allowed.
That perhaps explains the curious obsession theistic evolutionists have with Darwin in particular: You know, Saving Darwin, God after Darwin, Finding Darwin’s God…
If they were truly interested in evolution they would show much more interest in the mechanisms of evolution that we can document and less interest in Darwin’s mechanistic theory. Darwinian theory ignores what we know about how information is created but must be true if naturalism is to rule. Talk about revealing one’s true loyalties by one’s preferences!
See also: History walk: Phillip Johnson clearly explains Darwin’s two-platoon strategy
Follow UD News at Twitter!