Evolution versus Intelligent Design: The God of the Gaps

Joe Carter at The Evangelical Outpost has an outstanding article on the "God of the Gaps." Joe explains in easily understandable terms that the notion "actually encompasses four different views based on distinctions between a “science gap” (a gap in our current scientific knowledge) and a “nature gap” (a break in the continuous cause-effect chain of natural process) that may or may not be bridged by miraculous-appearing theistic action."

As technology advances, our science gaps close, but more science gaps often rise up to take their place. For example, we once thought that an electron was a sub-atomic particle that had no components. Now we know that electrons are made up of quarks and that quarks are made up of vibrating strings. Furthermore, for those strings to have the properties that they do, it is required that the universe have somewhere from 9 to 11 dimensions instead of the 3 dimensions that we operate with on an everyday basis. The other dimensions are very, very tiny and apparently curl back on themselves, but they exist nevertheless.

I'm going to upset some people here but I have no theological problem with evolution just as I don't have any theological problelm with gravity. In fact, I believe that evolution exists to some degree though I don't know how large a role it has played in the history of life here on earth. A good example is the fact of natural selection. Scientists routinely breed mice with certain characteristics by tossing out any mice that don't fit those characteristics. That's human action interfering with something, of course, but we see it in nature, too. When we have another ice age (and we will), species who aren't able to adapt will disappear. Whatever role evolution may or may not play, it is an invention of God because all truth is God's truth.

However, as a Christian, I also firmly believe that "God created the heavens and the earth." Moreover, as one with degrees in chemistry and chemical engineering and a lifelike career in science in one form or the other, I just cannot accept the claims of the hardcore Darwinists who believe that God, if he exists, had nothing to do with the growth of life here on earth. The numbers just don't match up -- the universe would have to be much, much older than it is for random mutations to have produced that variety of life that we see on earth. I have no doubts that God set things in motion and prods the development of new species. I just don't have any idea how often interferes miraculously with the laws that he set in place at the beginning of time. God is the creator and sustainer of all things and "in him we live and move and have our being."

So what does all this bring me to? Well, Joe made a brilliant comment to his own post:

I have to agree with Joe. Behe's idea of irreducible complexity is a tremendous challenge to the hardcore Darwinists and the evolution controversy will not disappear. Too many scientists have problem with the explanations offered by the hardcore evolutionists. Some of those problems may disappear as we learn more but I have a feeling that we will still be debating this issue in 50 years.

Now why haven’t scientists tested this to prove Behe wrong? Because, when all is said and done, neo-Darwinism can’t stand up under experimental scrutiny.

(I realize this is long but sometimes the quick soundbytes of the Behe's of the world are misleading and the truth takes a little time. Sorry for the effort required)

Behe, as so often is the downfall of those without the critical thinking skills necessary to appropriately evaluate evolution, falls into the trap of drastic assumption. This is easy to do when you investigate an area of science with a preconceived agenda to instead of with an open, subjective mind.

He assumes flagella have and always have existed for the sole purpose of locomotion. (Which is to say, he is assuming it was "added" as he would add it to an organism. Which is to say, he is assuming "intelligent design" and working backward).

But in reality, the flagella has a multitude of purposes on an individual bacteria and in across all bacteria has almost countless purposes.

So his "experiment" idea is misleading in that it assumes that bacteria went directly from zero protrusion to a single purpose locomotion flagellum. In real life a scientist would need to be able to correctly identify all of the other possible functions (which may have led to the intermediary forms) and somehow recreate the exact environmental situations (without a "reverse" crystal ball that allows him to look back several million or billion years) in order for that experiment to work.

So once again, we have an example of an

1) ID proponent who
2) over simplifies the situation to
3) make it more appealing to lay readers while still
4) laughably ignorable by scientists in order to
5) create the impression of a victory when scientists don't respond.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.