NATURALISM OF THE GAPS

In Shadow of Oz Theistic Evolution and the Absent God, Wayne D. Rossiter argues that theistic evolution (TE) compromises the Biblical faith in many ways. He uses the example of Karl Giberson, the co-founder of The Biologos Foundation whose vision is to convert the Church to TE:

* Giberson warns, “As soon as we start highlighting specific places where we think we glimpse God’s handiwork, we open ourselves to the old ‘God of the gaps’ problem.” This is telling. Giberson admits here that theistic evolutionists are not open to the possibility that any phenomenon is the direct work of God.

"The old ‘God of the gaps’ problem" is the false accusation that the God explanation exists only in the remaining gaps left by naturalistic science. However, as science continues to fill in the gaps of our knowledge, God will become increasingly more irrelevant.

However, such reasoning is illogical. It wrongly assumes that God is opposed to science. Instead, God - His creation and His elegant, universal, and immutable laws - serves as the foundation of science. Consequently, every finding of science should give credit to its Creator!

Likewise, Rossiter rips into the TE formulation:

* The claim is that, if there is a natural explanation for a phenomenon, God didn’t (directly) do it. At the same time, we’re not allowed to invoke God where explanations are lacking (i.e., the “gaps”). Said another way, if we can explain it, God is unnecessary, and if we can’t explain it today, we still shouldn’t invoke God, on the off chance an explanation emerges in the future. This is somewhat like betting on a coin flip where the rules are heads–I win, and tails–you lose. Both the explained and unexplained phenomena are off limits. That is, there is no situation where the agency of God can be invoked.

Hence, God has been eliminated by TE fiat. However, since the evolutionist cannot offer any evidence that anything is caused naturally and unintelligently, we can just as easily indict the TE position with the charge of "naturalism of the gaps."

THE VANISHING HOPE FOR A NATURAL EXPLANATION

In There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, Antony Flew concluded that DNA required an intelligent cause:

* “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”

* “I now believe there is a God…I now think it [the evidence] does point to a creative Intelligence almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.”

How does the atheist respond? The atheist might admit that there is no natural answer yet available but, eventually, there will be one.

However, there are many problems with this response:

1.     It is merely an expression of faith.

2.     There is no evidence that anything occurs as a result of natural laws or forces. These laws of science might instead be emanating from the mind of God.

3.     This model assumes, without evidence, that there is a conflict between a scientific- and a God- explanation. However, if the elegant, immutable, and universal laws of science originate with God, then science depends on God. In this case, science and God are in partnership. Therefore, every scientific explanation should also tip its hat in God's direction.

4.     Even if the laws of science are natural, each can only account for one limited action. For example, gravity can only attract. It cannot write poetry or fry an egg. It only works according to formula. However, there are many things for which formula cannot account - products of intelligence, like a book. DNA for another.
 

No wonder the world's leading atheist turned to theism.

THE FAITH OF THE NATURALIST

Many atheists claim that they would gladly believe in God if the evidence pointed in His direction. Evolutionary Biologist Jerry Coyne makes this very claim in "Faith vs Fact." However, there's good reason to question his claim. For one thing, the evidence is already available, abundantly. Paul A. Nelson, PH.D asks rhetorically:

·       "So why isn't the mystery of life a reasonable candidate for challenging the validity of naturalism or atheism? In the words of Francis Bacon (1561-1626), philosopher of the Scientific Revolution, God's 'ordinary works' (such as organisms) are more than enough 'to convince [refute] atheism.' That bacterial cell under the microscope, loaded with molecular machinery of astounding complexity, represents a world of evidence for design-- all the evidence anyone should ever need."

What does Coyne make of this evidence? His answer betrays an unwavering faith and commitment to naturalism:

·       "Given the remarkable ability of science to solve problems once considered intractable, the number of scientific phenomena that weren't even known a hundred years ago, it's probably more judicious to admit ignorance than to tout divinity." (157)

Coyne erroneously assumes that science is in opposition to divinity and that the scientific findings support a naturalistic worldview as opposed to ID. However, as Nelson and many others observe, it is these very findings that point feverishly to their Author.

In fact, the Bible affirms that God governs His creation by His laws. By what reason or evidence then can Coyne claim that these laws, which make science possible, are natural and undesigned? There is none!

Therefore, rather than science as a naturalistic triumph, it is more likely a testimony to its Creator, who has given us a mind to know Him.

Is Coyne open to the evidence? Is seems that he has already invested his faith in the wrong horse.

HAS SCIENCE BANISHED GOD?

Atheists charge that soon there will no longer be a purpose for God. Why? Because—they claim—we will no longer need God to explain the mysteries of life, since science is now providing those explanations, making God irrelevant. One atheist exults:

·       "As our understanding of the physical world has increased—and as our ability to test theories and claims has improved—the domain of God's miracles and interventions, or other supposed supernatural phenomena, has consistently shrunk...We stopped needing God to explain floods, but we still needed Him to explain sickness and health. Then we didn't need Him to explain sickness and health, but we still needed him to explain consciousness. Now we are beginning to get a grip on consciousness..."

The assumption is that science will soon make God irrelevant. However, this assumption is based upon an unsubstantiated leap of faith—that, in some way, scientific explanation is opposed to God's existence.

Instead of this model, there is another more in keeping with reason—that God is the foundation of science. It is God, therefore, who makes science possible. Looked at this way, science becomes, not the enemy of God but rather His invention, beautifully highlighting His workmanship.

After all, what is it that makes scientific discovery possible? Is it not God's immutable, universal, and elegantly causal laws—laws which are impossible without a Designer and immutable Sustainer?

Only with such a God as this is science and learning possible.

How can we account for the elegant laws of science without an Intelligent Designer? Can an explosion, what some might call the Big Bang, account for these exquisitely-structured laws? Can it explain E=MC2?

Instead, we recognize that such elegance is normally the product of intelligence. Without such simple and elegantly-fashioned laws, scientific discovery would be almost impossible. Think about it…if a law of science required fifty terms to accurately describe it, that very complexity might keep it hidden, preventing scientific understanding.

How do we account for the fact that such laws and/or causes operate uniformly and universally throughout the universe? Ordinarily, forces or causes operate locally. A campfire warms only when we are close to it. The radio station can only transmit its signal within a certain distance. However, the laws of science are not limited to certain locales. If they were, there could be no science, no descriptive formulas, no textbooks, no predictions, and no replication of findings appropriate to various continents and conditions.

What then enables the laws of the universe to operate uniformly and universally, unobstructed by storms, mountains, or distances? And why does nothing affect them, while they affect everything? They contrast with the things of this material world in every respect, suggesting that they come from another realm, a Transcendent realm.

What can account for the immutability of these laws in view of the fact that this entire universe is expanding, moving, and even deteriorating—moment by moment? Must there not be an uncaused Cause who remains immutable? For, if the Cause changed, how could “it” sustain our immutable laws?

Besides this, how can science function in such a changing world? Would not its findings also be in flux? And wouldn't these findings be entirely useless? As soon as we could publish them, the supposed facts would have already changed.

In all their characteristics, the laws of science point to their Creator and Sustainer. Their immutability, uniformity, and elegance demand an Intelligent Designer.

Yet, the atheist encounters other problems, as well. If the many laws of science are not eternal, then they too require a cause and an explanation. Their cause can only be an uncaused Eternal Intelligent Being, who does not require a cause.

If these laws are eternal, they must transcend the beginning of this finite universe. The fact that they would have worked so harmoniously and would have been so fine-tuned to create such an orderly, functional, and life-sustaining universe points to their unity and perhaps eternality within the Mind of God.

Besides, without such a transcendent Being, science would never be able to reasonably explain anything! Why not? Because any explanation would always require its own explanation, ad infinitum.

In conclusion, science does not do away with God. Instead—whether it wants to admit it or not—all the sciences depend upon Him! Therefore, science is not in opposition to God. Rather, science derives its very being and substance from Him! As a result, every scientific finding declares, not only His existence, but also His glory.

“God of the Gaps” Fallacy

What is the “God of the Gaps” argument? Here is how atheism.wiki.com explains it:         

• God of the Gaps is a concept that comes from the fact that God is being squeezed into an ever smaller series of existential gaps… At one time, all the phenomena in the universe could be ascribed to God. The stars, the rain, the seasons etc. With time, and improved scientific explanations, the number of things for which "God did it" was a good explanation was reduced, and god was equally reduced to inhabiting ever smaller gaps in human knowledge… It should be remembered however, the fact that science has no present explanation in no way means that god (or Uranus, Zeus, Odin or any other god/goddess) exists or that the God/Gods of any other Mythology exist. Indeed, if we were never to answer these questions it still wouldn't mean that Allah created the Universe or that Thor causes it to thunder.

Through this incoherent thinking, atheists hope to demonstrate that any possible argument in favor of God is being pushed into the gaps or margins – those areas where science has not yet been able to provide an explanation. Once these areas have been scientifically explained, there will remain no further argument in favor of the existence of God.

However, there is a hidden and fallacious assumption here that has construed science to favor atheism – that scientific findings/understandings undermine the existence of God rather than validate the existence of God. It assumes that “God is being squeezed” out of consideration by science rather than being placed in stage-center.

The central question is this: “Who did it?” Do natural, undersigned laws account for scientific knowledge or do designed, purposeful laws account for them?

Of course, we cannot put God (ID) in a test tube. However, we are equally unable to put the concept of natural causation into a test tube. Both go beyond experimentation and replication. Instead, we have to examine them from a higher more philosophical perspective and ask:

• Which theory best accounts for the findings: naturalism or supernaturalism (intelligence, ID)? 

Here are some considerations in favor of ID:

1. There is no evidence that natural, unintelligent forces exist. Although we all agree that objects are subject to laws and respond in formulaic and predictable ways, there is no evidence whatsoever that these laws are natural and unintelligent in origin. Besides, natural causation cannot be invoked to explain them, since the natural hadn’t been in existence to cause the “natural” laws. It is more likely that they find their origin and unity in the single transcendent Mind of God. 

2. Reason, logic, and the laws that govern this universe are unchanging. In an ever expanding universe of molecules-in-motion, naturalism can’t account for them. Only an omnipotent, immutable God can! Only a transcendent (outside-of-this universe) God is impervious to change. Only transcendent laws can effect phenomena in this universe in a universal and uniform way.

3. Reason, logic, and the laws of science are uniform, wherever we look and in whatever historical period. However, for a force or law to be natural, it must have a location from which it exerts its influence. (At least, that’s our experience with the “natural.”) The sun attracts the earth because it is in proximity to the earth. We find that this gravitational influence diminishes as the distance increases. Likewise, I’ve found that I can’t pick up the WQXR radio signals, which beam from NYC, when I’m in Pennsylvania. However, the laws of science seem to operate uniformly and universally, transcending the material constraints of location, matter and energy. Naturalism can’t explain this, but supernaturalism can.

4. The laws require an adequate cause. Naturalism is unable to postulate such a cause. And there are also so many other things that naturalism can’t adequately explain (life, DNA, fine-tuning of the universe, freewill, consciousness, moral absolutes, the unchanging physical laws). In order to theorize about the origins of these things, naturalism must make many desperate theoretical leaps into muliverses and the emergent properties of matter. This violates simplicity and Occam’s razor. In contrast, ID need only postulate the Creator to explain all. Only He is adequate.

5. Our experience with causal agents informs us that the cause is always greater than the effect. If the effect was greater than the cause, it would suggest that some aspect(s) of the effect is uncaused - a scientific impossibility! However, the Creator is certainly greater than His creation.

6. Naturalism cannot account to the elegance of the laws of science. Nor can it explain how the laws work harmoniously and do not destroy one another. However, ID can!

Perhaps, then, we should be thinking in terms of “naturalism of the gaps.”