Just when I despaired finding good material to write on anymore, I was forwarded a slew of stupidity from Creation Moments. Say what you will about the Young-Earth Creationists (I was reminded to clarify which specific "kind" of creationists I'm arguing against), but in many ways they are remarkably consistent; they repeat the same objections over and over and over again. The forms may change, or, if you will, evolve, but at heart they are the same few objections expressed differently. One of the more recent Creation Moments, titled "The Archer Fish" is no exception to this idea. It's a classic "God of the Gaps" argument.
The argument generally goes like this: Look at this object or feature in nature, in this case the ability of the archer fish to send a concentrated burst of water from its mouth to stun an insect and eat it. The young-earther then continues on to develop in detail how it is done (with the unstated assertion that it is very complex). This is followed by an expression of incredulity that this feature could develop by the "blind chance" of evolution; the creationist then asserts it could only have been the work of a benevolent Creator and sits back smugly, thinking himself to have won the argument.
But as anyone with basic training in philosophy knows, this is a bad argument for (at least) two basic reasons. The first is that any argument fails if it contains a false premise. The second is that an argument fails if it contains a logical fallacy. The "God of the Gaps" argument contains a number of false premises, assertions that make up the foundation of the argument that just aren't true. Take, for instance, the implied assertion that the archer fish's ability to shoot water is complex. I would certainly agree that it's quite interesting, but it doesn't seem all that complex. It certainly doesn't seem like proof of the YEC version of the Creator, nor does it constitute disproof of evolution. In fact, the component parts themselves seem rather simple; a groove, gills pressurizing water, etc. The second false premise is that "mindless chance evolution" can't explain it. That premise is false on two accounts; the first is that evolution implies mindless chance. This is another bad creationist argument; evolution may be directionless beyond short-term survival and the genetic changes that arise certainly are random, but the process of natural selection is hardly "random chance." The process continually selects for "fitness" in whatever form that may take. To put it more simply, evolution is non-random selection of random genetic changes. While I haven't taken the trouble to search to see whether there is any "mindless chance evolution" explanation for the archer fish's ability, that isn't to say it doesn't exist. Nor do I put great confidence in the idea that Creation Moments carefully sifted through the scientific literature to see whether one exists either before they asserted that science has no explanation for this.
The other false idea that undercuts this argument, the bad argument that lies at the rotten heart of every "God of the Gaps" argument ties in with the wrong assertion that "mindless chance evolution" can't account for it. In logic, we refer to this as a "false dichotomy." In the "God of the Gaps" argument the false dichotomy or the false choice is that if evolution cannot explain it, then automatically a Creator did it. Evolution can't explain this feature, ergo God. But that is a false choice, and not only for the fact that I certainly think evolution can explain the archer fish but because even if evolution was incapable of explaining it, it does not follow that creationism must be right. The false dichotomy presents two choices as though they were the only choices when this may not be the case. In this case, the argument is a novelty in that we are presented with two false choices aside from the option of evolution; the other choice, quickly rejected, is that the fish "designed" the system itself, rightly dismissed as an impossibility. Again we see through the last part of the argument creationist inability to think beyond a single, or a few, generations. Such a system as we see in the archer fish would have had many generations to develop, perhaps starting with the evolution of the groove in its mouth.
The false dichotomy of the "God of the Gaps" argument at work in the archer fish piece is, at heart, just as dangerous to religion as it is to science, perhaps more so. One would think that people as self-evidently devout as the Young-Earth Creationists would see that whatever gains they might make in the short term they will generally lose in the long term. Inserting God into the "gaps" of scientific knowledge is not a winning proposition, if history is any indication. We used to think that the Creator controlled the movement of the planets, made the sun rise and set, that such a being called all life into being in six literal days, shaped humanity from the dust of the earth. But none of this is true at all, according to modern science. The planets, in fact all the celestial bodies including the sun, operate not through the intervention of a Creator but by natural, physical laws. Geology tells us that life arose over a long period of time, not six literal days, and that humans evolved just like any other plant or animal. Anymore, it seems like creationists assert God into smaller and smaller Gaps in our scientific knowledge. As science closes these gaps with increasing frequency, Young Earth Creationists are running out of room. If they hadn't continued playing this game for so long, perhaps their faith would be in a better state than it is.
Anywhere from 10-14% of the U.S. population is non-religious; that number increases to nearly a quarter when we look just at the younger generation, roughly 18-25 year olds. This is an interesting demographic trend that many are trying to understand. Are we on the same path as Europe, where in most countries the non-religious are either a plurality or a majority? Why is this trend occurring? I would have to think that at least part of it is because when creationist examples of objects and features that are just "too complex" for evolution to account for (and thus the product of the Creator) get explained by evolution, what is the public to make of this? When creationists' examples of the work of their Creator get continually struck down by science, we can hardly blame those "evil secularists" when people stop taking the entire argument seriously.
Continued use of the "God of the Gaps" argument is just one reason for the decline of religion in America, and, least you think I'm being hostile to religion, even religious figures from St. Augustine to Dietrich Bonhoeffer and even recently Michael Behe have criticized the "God of the Gaps" argument as harmful to faith overall.
But creationists don't see it this way, don't understand that they are their own worst enemy. Science continues its work, having left the young-earthers behind over a century ago, and the creationists keep getting pushed further and further into a corner, bemoaning the conspiracy of "atheist scientists" when in fact they are largely to blame for their irrelevence.
The argument generally goes like this: Look at this object or feature in nature, in this case the ability of the archer fish to send a concentrated burst of water from its mouth to stun an insect and eat it. The young-earther then continues on to develop in detail how it is done (with the unstated assertion that it is very complex). This is followed by an expression of incredulity that this feature could develop by the "blind chance" of evolution; the creationist then asserts it could only have been the work of a benevolent Creator and sits back smugly, thinking himself to have won the argument.
But as anyone with basic training in philosophy knows, this is a bad argument for (at least) two basic reasons. The first is that any argument fails if it contains a false premise. The second is that an argument fails if it contains a logical fallacy. The "God of the Gaps" argument contains a number of false premises, assertions that make up the foundation of the argument that just aren't true. Take, for instance, the implied assertion that the archer fish's ability to shoot water is complex. I would certainly agree that it's quite interesting, but it doesn't seem all that complex. It certainly doesn't seem like proof of the YEC version of the Creator, nor does it constitute disproof of evolution. In fact, the component parts themselves seem rather simple; a groove, gills pressurizing water, etc. The second false premise is that "mindless chance evolution" can't explain it. That premise is false on two accounts; the first is that evolution implies mindless chance. This is another bad creationist argument; evolution may be directionless beyond short-term survival and the genetic changes that arise certainly are random, but the process of natural selection is hardly "random chance." The process continually selects for "fitness" in whatever form that may take. To put it more simply, evolution is non-random selection of random genetic changes. While I haven't taken the trouble to search to see whether there is any "mindless chance evolution" explanation for the archer fish's ability, that isn't to say it doesn't exist. Nor do I put great confidence in the idea that Creation Moments carefully sifted through the scientific literature to see whether one exists either before they asserted that science has no explanation for this.
The other false idea that undercuts this argument, the bad argument that lies at the rotten heart of every "God of the Gaps" argument ties in with the wrong assertion that "mindless chance evolution" can't account for it. In logic, we refer to this as a "false dichotomy." In the "God of the Gaps" argument the false dichotomy or the false choice is that if evolution cannot explain it, then automatically a Creator did it. Evolution can't explain this feature, ergo God. But that is a false choice, and not only for the fact that I certainly think evolution can explain the archer fish but because even if evolution was incapable of explaining it, it does not follow that creationism must be right. The false dichotomy presents two choices as though they were the only choices when this may not be the case. In this case, the argument is a novelty in that we are presented with two false choices aside from the option of evolution; the other choice, quickly rejected, is that the fish "designed" the system itself, rightly dismissed as an impossibility. Again we see through the last part of the argument creationist inability to think beyond a single, or a few, generations. Such a system as we see in the archer fish would have had many generations to develop, perhaps starting with the evolution of the groove in its mouth.
The false dichotomy of the "God of the Gaps" argument at work in the archer fish piece is, at heart, just as dangerous to religion as it is to science, perhaps more so. One would think that people as self-evidently devout as the Young-Earth Creationists would see that whatever gains they might make in the short term they will generally lose in the long term. Inserting God into the "gaps" of scientific knowledge is not a winning proposition, if history is any indication. We used to think that the Creator controlled the movement of the planets, made the sun rise and set, that such a being called all life into being in six literal days, shaped humanity from the dust of the earth. But none of this is true at all, according to modern science. The planets, in fact all the celestial bodies including the sun, operate not through the intervention of a Creator but by natural, physical laws. Geology tells us that life arose over a long period of time, not six literal days, and that humans evolved just like any other plant or animal. Anymore, it seems like creationists assert God into smaller and smaller Gaps in our scientific knowledge. As science closes these gaps with increasing frequency, Young Earth Creationists are running out of room. If they hadn't continued playing this game for so long, perhaps their faith would be in a better state than it is.
Anywhere from 10-14% of the U.S. population is non-religious; that number increases to nearly a quarter when we look just at the younger generation, roughly 18-25 year olds. This is an interesting demographic trend that many are trying to understand. Are we on the same path as Europe, where in most countries the non-religious are either a plurality or a majority? Why is this trend occurring? I would have to think that at least part of it is because when creationist examples of objects and features that are just "too complex" for evolution to account for (and thus the product of the Creator) get explained by evolution, what is the public to make of this? When creationists' examples of the work of their Creator get continually struck down by science, we can hardly blame those "evil secularists" when people stop taking the entire argument seriously.
Continued use of the "God of the Gaps" argument is just one reason for the decline of religion in America, and, least you think I'm being hostile to religion, even religious figures from St. Augustine to Dietrich Bonhoeffer and even recently Michael Behe have criticized the "God of the Gaps" argument as harmful to faith overall.
But creationists don't see it this way, don't understand that they are their own worst enemy. Science continues its work, having left the young-earthers behind over a century ago, and the creationists keep getting pushed further and further into a corner, bemoaning the conspiracy of "atheist scientists" when in fact they are largely to blame for their irrelevence.
False dichotomy? Yeah, that, too. They all think that if it isn't evolution, then it is creation--and that seems reasonable enough, to a large degree. However, they think that if they can just prove a Creator then they're home free. Not so fast. Proving a creator is one thing--proving that the creator is the one YOU (general "you") worship, or are claiming to defend, is another huge undertaking all on its own.
ReplyDelete