Why I.D. Isn't “God of the Gaps:” A Rumination

When Darwinists criticize Intelligent Design, one of their chief lines of attack is that I.D. is basically a modern-day regurgitation of the “God of the Gaps” argument.

What’s “God of the Gaps?” Per Wikipedia...

The phrase God of the gaps refers to a view of God as existing in the "gaps" or aspects of reality that are currently unexplained by scientific knowledge...

The term "God of the gaps" is sometimes used in describing the perceived incremental retreat of religious explanations of physical phenomena in the face of increasingly comprehensive scientific explanations for those phenomena. An example of the line of reasoning starts with the position that early religious descriptions of objects and events (such as the Sun, Moon, and stars; thunder and lightning) placed these in the realm of things created or controlled by a god or gods. As scientific explanations were found for observations in the realms of astronomy, meteorology, geology, cosmology and biology, the use of supernatural explanations for phenomena was progressively reduced, occupying smaller and smaller 'gaps' in knowledge…

One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." Critics of "intelligent design", for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.

On the surface, equating I.D. with “God of the Gaps” is a fair criticism. Considering everything we’re learned about the material world in the last few centuries, equating a lack of knowledge about physical phenomenon (weather currents, the shifting of tectonics plates, the power of magnetic fields, etc.) to divine intervention seems a tad odd. We can explain patterns in non-living matter fairly well without resorting to the possibility of a supernatural agent.

However, biology – “Life” itself – is fundamentally different from non-living matter. Life is a true mystery, and any honest scientist will admit as much. What is "Life" – the mysterious essence which turns inert matter into volitional consciousness (and keeps that consciousness churning every second of every day until death)? We don’t know. In his solid book, The Vital Dimension, Carl Gunther examines the awe-inspiring mystery of Life in exquisite detail. We aren't even close to explaining what "Life" is - never mind its origin. So while it's fair to reject a “God of the Gaps” argument for purely material phenomenon, when it comes to Life we shouldn’t automatically reject it because Life itself strongly suggests at least a partly non-material dimension. We have to keep our minds open to the possibility of a divine origin and plan. Based on what we know about “Life” (which is practically nothing) it would be irresponsible to rule out a divine source automatically.

Consider this: Everything in the Universe – all matter, all life, everything - started with the Big Bang. But when scientists are inevitably asked, “What caused the Big Bang?” their typical answer is, “We don’t know and we may never know.” That's a fine answer. And an honest one. So why can’t we ask the same question about Life itself: “What caused Life?” Given what little we know about Life, why is it unthinkable to answer – in light of the failure of Darwinian theory - “We don’t know and we may never know.” On such a question, the materialist framework fails us. And thus we come to the possibility of an Intelligent Designer – the same Designer who instituted the “fine tuning of the Universe (as demonstrated in the “Anthropic Principle"). The fine-tuning of the Universe began with the Big Bang 14 billion years ago. So why can’t there be a fine-tuning of Life with the creation of the first cell 3 billion years ago? And once we accept that possibility, it becomes OK to consider the chance that there was some monkeying around with the creation of human beings (this would go against the concept of “Common Descent” – perhaps the only part of Darwinian theory that seems plausible given the evidence at hand).




If we accept this possibility – this distinct possibility, this likelihood, in fact – that doesn’t mean science comes to an end. Centuries ago, when God-believing scientists (Newton, Kepler, Copernicus, and others too numerous to count) worked to understand the laws of matter, they accepted the inherent “mystery” of the true source of matter, but out of a spirit of curiosity, they still groped to understand the mystery, and through that process, they advanced our knowledge and – through technical innovations – they improved our quality of life enormously. Why can’t we recapture that same attitude toward God as we work to say to unlock the mysteries of Life? We can. And we must. Because it’s true.