Just as there is the error in GOG there is also error in, and more painfully
and evidently so, EOG (evolution of the gaps). This cannot be argued, all the
gaps existing in the natural history of life are attributed to the
Design Theory, as I envision it, is not trying to find cases of GOG to then
point to a designer. The fact is that evidences of design(er) is everywhere -
the psalmists and prophets thought so. But in science, our inevitably
philosophically driven science (remember the "alternatives" theories to the
Big Bang), the evidence for a designer is more clear in cases of irreducible
complexity (IC). BTW, the world economy is not a good example of IC as I've
heard around here, simply because if not IC, although I must confess that it
has been put together by many "designers".
So, without saying that TE's are wrong, I do say that they probably are in the
most difficult position. One hand they must deal with their brothers and
sisters in Christ that do not accept the scientific notion of evolution as the
bulk of science views it; and on the other hand, they are despised by their
fellow non-TE scientists because they (the TE's) redefined the "true" meaning
of what the bulk of science understands by evolution.
Oh Man, thou shall argueth forever, 'cause thou art fallenth
> Re: Defining GOG
> George Andrews (firstname.lastname@example.org)
> Wed, 17 Dec 1997 09:01:50 -0600
> Craig Rusbult wrote:
> > Always? Maybe not; we should not use "the boy who cried wolf" logic to
> > eliminate a plausible theory (such as ID) from consideration. One type of
> > gaps-error is to insist on gaps if (in reality) there are none; but if gaps
> > really do exist, then assuming they don't exist will lead us into error.
> > Craig
> This is precisely the problem with ID. Evolution theory may (can?) account for
> information generation via complexity notions which, therefore, fill the design
> or information gap. This information gap, as I understand, is the thrust of the
> ID argument.
> George Andrews Jr.