I think Michael Shermer nailed it, regarding the science vs. intelligent design debate?

It's not a question, I know, but it's worth reading.

«What all the intelligent design theorists are doing is saying that: «we can't figure out how X came about naturally, therefore X came about supernaturally, end of story.» We call this the God of the gaps argument. Wherever there's a gap in scientific knowledge, there's where the Intelligent Designer operated...

...Science is not just a process of looking for gaps --it is, but that's only the start of the research programme--. The only point in looking for gaps is to find a place to do new research. So the programme that the intelligent design theorists propose is just gap-seeking, not gap-filling. There's no research that I've been able to find where they say: «this is what we think the explanation is for X» other than «we think that an Intelligent Designer did it».—MICHAEL SHERMER.

feel free to comment.

Update:

@christ follower: «Science seeks to make reality coherent; theology seeks to convince us that some aspects of reality are incoherent. To the extent that science succeeds, theology dies of strangulation.»

—GEORGE H. SMITH.

6 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Yep. ID does NOT fill gaps nor does it advance knowledge. It only widens the gaps and makes bigger holes.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I'll gladly comment. Obviously, Mr. Shermer knows nothing about true science and true intelligent design. It is found in the last place we think of. Astronomy. I study astrophysics and other field space projects (such as the current one we are researching called The Galileo Project). Science is not an exact and has never been. There are people who research for their entire life and are nowhere closer to their goal than when they began. Which brings up the subject of intelligent design. Your (or his rather) comment says that if we can't figure it out, it automatically becomes supernatural. Call it the "God of gaps" or whatever you (he) wants to. The truth, in reality, is somewhere between the fine line of spirit and science or better yet, a combination of them both. Some in the research fields are already "blending" them together. It is a new concept to us, as we are still in the beginning of astronomical study and intelligent creation. However, this concept is as primitive as life is - as we know it.

  • I think this is a common way to try and dismiss intelligent design theorists while masking the limitations of science. Like it or not, there are MANY things science can not and will not ever be able to explain.

    Responsible intelligent design theorists don't just search for gaps, they search for the gaps and attempt to understand "how" God did it. There will always be gaps that can't be filled, but attempting to understand the complexity and diversity of creation is still at the forefront of many intelligent design theorists' research and agendas. The curiosity of human nature still drives scientists on the "intelligent design" side of the debate to attempt to understand the "how", regardless of their position.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    If this suits your rationality then, you have made your choice. This to me, is not a sufficient argument for denying the existence of God. This is a poor argument.

    -Till Christ Returns

    God Bless

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    That about sums it up.It's known as "goddidit"

  • shell
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    sounds like denial of the one and Only creator!

    Source(s): God almighty
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.