Intelligent Designer of the Gaps

This is prompted by a post by the Discovery Institute:

Once Again, Why Intelligent Design Is Not a "God-of-the-Gaps"

Centuries ago, man had a poor understanding of nature, and attributed all sorts of natural forces, such as lightning, earthquakes and even the seasons to their gods. Over time, people have come to realise that there are mundane (i.e., not supernatural) reasons for these things, and slowly gods or God is being removed from our understanding of how the universe works. God (in one view) is left as lord of the gaps in our knowledge, and as science progresses, those gaps get ever smaller.

Intelligent Design is "God-of-the-gaps" exactly because it exploits those gaps. Ancient man could not explain lightning, so assumed a supernatural intelligent agency was responsible. Modern man cannot the origin of life (not well enough for certain people anyway), so IDists feel they can assume a supernatural intelligent agency was responsible.

No Positive Evidence

Real science deals with positive evidence; a scientist devises a hypothesis, then offers evidence that supports the hypothesis.

The Discovery Institute's pseudoscience is not like that. They deal with negative evidence; they devise a hypothesis (well, take it from the Bible, and hide the religion), but instead of offering evidence for their hypothesis, they give (supposed) evidence against the competing hypothesis - evolution principally.

If evolution turns out to be wrong, why should we assume that ID must therefore be true? They never say - they cannot because they have no evidence for their claims. In science, if there is no well-supported hypothesis, we say we do not know. In pseudoscience, if there is no well-supported hypothesis, you just assume your own pet theory is true.

ID and God-of-the-gaps

Examples of God-of-the-gaps in ID include:

Dembski's explanatory filter: Basically this say if it was unlikely to have formed by nature, then we should assume Dembski's pet theory is true.

Behe's intrinsic complexity: This claims that if evolution could not produce the IC system, then we should assume Behe's pet theory is true.

With regards to Dembski's claims, the DI article says:

A design inference is not triggered by any phenomenon that we cannot yet explain. Rather, it is triggered when two conditions are met. First, the event must be exceedingly improbable (so much so that it exhausts the available probabilistic resources). Second, it must conform to a meaningful or independently given pattern.

Sure, it is not trigger by any phenomenon that we cannot yet explain; it is triggered by specific phenomenon that we cannot yet explain. That is still God-of-the-gaps. It is still inserting God into something we do not properly understand yet.

Comparing to Real Science

The article says:

Does a forensic scientist commit an "arson-of-the-gaps" fallacy in inferring that a fire was started deliberately rather than by natural causes?

This is an excellent question the author raises. Do forensic scientists infer arson if they cannot explain it by natural causes? I would hope not! I would imagine they look for evidence for arson before they conclude arson. If they cannot find evience for either, the result is that they do not know. This is science, not pseudoscience; you do not get to assume your pet theory when the other hypothesis fails.


I will note that the second part to ID is argument by analogy. That is, if a natural thing has a designed analogue, then the natural thing is probably designed. This is not God-of-the-gaps, but neither is it science.