Re: Van Till's Ultimate Gap

From: Steve Petermann (
Date: Wed Sep 03 2003 - 12:27:23 EDT

  • Next message: Debbie Mann: "RE: Van Till's Ultimate Gap"

    Hi Josh,

    The "gaps" arguments are based, I believe, on a presumption of
    intrinsicality. That is that there are properties/laws/forces that are
    intrinsic to the cosmos and the entities in it. But can this presumption be
    logically supported? To illustrate, imagine a juggler who paints herself
    blue and stands in front of a blue screen for a TV performance. To the
    viewing audience the juggler is invisible and the balls seem to act on their
    own. Now a scientist in the audience might take some measurements, create a
    theory that seems to accurately describe the movement of the balls.
    Naturally the scientist will think the balls have intrinsic causal
    properties. But in this case it is a false presumption. In fact the
    juggler, if she wanted to, could even vary her throws a little from time to
    time and the scientist would just view them as anomalies where, in fact,
    over a long period of time the actual pattern could have changed
    significantly. The gaps arguments suggest that God is a spectator who jumps
    into the fray from time to time. Elements in Christianity, process
    theology, and other religions offer a different view that God is a blue
    screen juggler constantly creating and evolving meaning and purpose in the

    Best Regards,
    Steve Petermann

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Josh Bembenek" <>
    To: <>
    Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 12:42 AM
    Subject: Van Till's Ultimate Gap

    > Just a quick thought that I'd like some feedback on. Many on this list
    > expressed dismay over IDers usage of God's "hand-like" action as a magic
    > wand to use whenever scientists don't understand a particular phenomena.
    > agree that it is fruitful to point out that God never ceases to act in
    > sustaining Creation and that such rhetorical strategy implies
    > creation when natural mechanisms are found to account for such phenomena.
    > However, I wonder if this same problem exists for the fully-gifted
    > viewpoint? What makes us think that the origin of space time and the
    > derivation of matter, energy and all of the universe is simply a gap in
    > understanding that some future naturalistic discovery won't elegantly
    > explain, again making the "God Hypothesis" obsolete? Perhaps I should
    > remember some discussion of this in some article, but its not coming to
    > I don't care to defend my idea by trying to give any explanation for a
    > naturalistic origin of space-time. Besides for those here, isn't it
    > sufficient enough to hypothesize that a naturalistic explanation is out
    > there awaiting our discovery instead of "jumping the gun" and prematurely
    > attributing creation to the act of God before all explanations are fully
    > explored? The Big Bang Hypothesis is younger than evolution isn't it?
    > not looking for a drawn out debate, just some thoughtful considerations.
    > Josh
    > _________________________________________________________________
    > Get MSN 8 and enjoy automatic e-mail virus protection.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Sep 03 2003 - 12:31:17 EDT