A student appended a comment to one of my blog posts, charging that intelligent design is just a God of the Gaps argument (if we assume design we cannot learn very much about the world), and asking for a response. Here it is, and here is an excerpt:
“The concern you expressed above, that an inference of design means that “we wouldn’t learn very much about the world”, beautifully captures the default position of defenders of materialism – whether they claim to be churchgoers or not – and that may be where you first encountered it. (I am not saying that you are a materialist; I am saying that you have beautifully captured their default position.)
Their view makes sense, of course, once you assume up front that materialism is really true. [ …]
And – note this carefully, for this follows too – when we identify evidence that looks like design, we must seek an “explanation” that rules out design, even if it doesn’t really work well. That’s okay because some day we will have an explanation that rules out design that works a lot better. Otherwise we wouldn’t learn very much about the world.
That is actually a classic recipe for a point of view that can never be disconfirmed by evidence. So it is not surprising that materialists insist that the evidence for their point of view and for their creation story (Darwinism) is overwhelming. Following their rules, there is no circumstance under which it could ever be otherwise.”
IÃ‚Â findÃ‚Â interestingÃ‚Â the way students areÃ‚Â unemphatically taughtÃ‚Â to see scienceÃ‚Â as applied materialism.