The Discovery Institute and God-of-the-gaps. Part II

 

Picture from: True and False Cases Of The God Of The Gaps Fallacy - Cerebral Faith

In this series I'm looking at a post by North American Intelligent Design (NAID) pundit Jonathan MacLatchie: Here's the post and his mugshot:

Atheist: Why ID Is Not “God of the Gaps” | Science and Culture Today

It is my contention that in spite of denials NAID has it's roots in a subliminal god-of-the-gaps theophilosophy. However, as it turns out NAID's stance isn't just about logic, philosophy and theology: There is also a strong cultural and political vein running through the NAID tribe which makes the whole thing very messy and unpleasant to deal with. In fact my thesis is that NAID's anti-evolutionism is driven by the popularist notion (possibly related to enlightenment deism) of a "god-did-it vs evolution-did-it" dichotomy.  The NAID golden boys have picked up this dichotomy and run with its popular appeal and this has help them promote their ministries. In a confusing and apparently anchorless, meaningless world, the popular mind is fertile ground for those who promote simple certainties and dichotomies which help sort out the sheep from the goats: For example, as I myself would be critical of NAID tribal culture and especially any links it has with Trumpery, this would likely classify me as "woke" or even a "radical leftist"; rubrics which are wholly inappropriate. Human tribal life is, in fact, a lot more complicated than a simple division between the woke and the unwoke; this much is clear when we consider the Tucker Carlson case; see here:

Views, News and Pews: The Super Unwoke vs the Unwoke: A right wing split.

Division, it seems, is the natural state of human affairs. (See 1 Cor 11:18)

I'm not the least bit surprised that the followers of the likes of an authoritarian fundamentalist such as Ken Ham would be Trumpites. But neither are the NAID community above politics. A post on atheist PZ Myer's blog is a sign of just how political NAID can get: It tells us that NAID Bill Dembski has been hob-knobbing with the far right hardline fascist "Vox Day".  See these links: 

Vox Day’s amazing ego, and Bill Dembski don’t care

Vox Day Interview on Evolutionary Theory - by Bill Dembski

This was really disappointing! I once thought better of NAID & especially Dembski. But there's no persuading those who are culturally and politically primed in such a way: The issue becomes impenetrably sociological, political and polarised. Polarisation passion feeds. Passion polarisation breeds. Polarisation is passion's cause, for crusade and holy wars.  However, let me continue with Jonathan's theophilosophy and see where it leads.

****

JONATHAN: Lowder concludes that “Whatever problems may exist within that argument, being a God-of-the-gaps argument clearly isn’t one of them.” I completely agree with Lowder’s assessment. Intelligent design makes the argument that various specific features of life and the universe — in particular, the informational properties of DNA, and the irreducibly complex nature of molecular systems — are rendered vastly more probable than they would otherwise be by the supposition that a conscious mind was involved in their origins. Thus, they are positively confirmatory of design. Since confirmations of design in the universe are significantly less surprising (or, more probable) given the hypothesis of theism than on its falsehood, the evidence of design also translates into positive evidence of the existence of God. Perhaps there are vulnerabilities in this argument structure — but, whatever may be wrong with it, it is certainly not wrong by virtue of being a god-of-the-gaps argument. I would like to commend Lowder for his intellectual integrity in pointing this out, despite our disagreements on the larger question of whether intelligent design is in fact true.

MY COMMENT:  As we've seen in Part I Lowder's approach is too vague and in fact too close to god-of-the gaps to bail out NAID.  Nevertheless, I do agree with Jonathan that the remarkable organizational features of the universe, especially in its propensity to support life, are intuitively compelling evidence for a cosmically transcendent designer, although it's true to say that for some people this intuition looks to be absent(?). For me personally however, this intuition exists whether or not the currently conceived mechanisms of evolution is the actual engine behind natural history. The popularist theophilosophy which can not help but perceive a god-did-it vs evolution-did-it dichotomy runs counter to an understanding that accepted evolutionary mechanisms also intuitively point to a transcendent sentient cause. As for the certainty that Jonathan displays about irreducible complexity: I have to confess that I don't share that certainty: For given our physical regime it is not clear that configuration space doesn't have a spongeam, a necessary condition of gradualist concepts of evolution. Garnering certainty about the question of the spongeam one way or the other is not easy. But why get uptight about this question when it is clear that evolutionary mechanisms as currently conceived are as remarkable if not more remarkable than life itself. So when Jonathan says above that: 

Intelligent design makes the argument that various specific features of life and the universe — in particular, the informational properties of DNA..   are rendered vastly more probable than they would otherwise be by the supposition that a conscious mind was involved in their origins.

... I'm very sympathetic to the intuitions expressed here, but these intuitions are compelling whether or not the engine driving natural history is standard evolution.  But of course we know that Jonathan is part of a community who are vociferously anti-evolution. And as I keep saying the philosophical reason for this, I submit, is that NAID hasn't taken cognizance of the big difference between inhouse non-transcendent intelligent agents and a transcendent and yet immanent Omnigod. With the Omnigod it's not a case of an explanatory gap here and there (as it is with  the work of cosmically inhouse intelligence) but a gap everywhere  and everywhen: As yet we have no logical proof for the spatial and temporal persistence of the organization imposed by physical laws; it remains a logical hiatus as far as we are concerned. Moreover, the NAID community appear not to have made anything of the realization of just how remarkable evolution is (But see Dembski here who seems to have an inkling).  None of this is to say that I'm committed to the standard evolutionary picture; I'm free to keep my options open until I feel that the evidence is starting to personally bite. After all I'm not a paleontologist or biologist. 

But dodgy NAID philosophy apart I suggest that the real backbone behind this community is sociopolitical: They are riding on the back of a popularist dualism that conceives an evolution-did-it vs God-did-it dichotomy.  But not only that; this popularism has resulted in them falling into the embrace of Trumpite Christianity. NAID is riding on a sociologically motivated god-of-the gaps theophilosophy whether they like it or not, whether they admit it or not. 

.....to be continued.