Christian's innacuracies about gaps in scientific knowledge

[Cmass]

I have heard many Christians on this forum - and elsewhere - point out supposed gaps in scientific knowledge as proof that a magical being exists. I have found that sometimes these gaps don't even exist - it is instead a gap in the knowledge of the magical being believer.

Do Christians use their own gaps in knowledge as a means to prove the existence of a magical being?

[Katsuro]

I have to agree with you completely on this one. Very often it is the case that Christians rubbish evolution because they don't actually understand it. Nearly all of the classic arguments they use against evolution makes it plainly obvious that they just simply don't have a full, proper understanding of the subject. I don't claim to know everything about evolution, but I know enough to know that most of these classic arguments are absurd and easily countered.

You also raise a very good point, one which Dawkins mentions in The Gid Delusion. Just because there is a gap or just because we don't fully understand something yet does not mean that God is the only explanation. Mankind would never have progressed if everytime we came to something we didn't understand and just said "It must be God", gave up and left it at that. "God did it" is nothing more than an "I don't know" dressed up in spirituality.

[Cmass]

Bravo!
And long live Dawkins. I wonder how he would be considered in my country if he had an accent from the deep South?
Your statement:

Just because there is a gap or just because we don't fully understand something yet does not mean that God is the only explanation.

...has caused me to add to my OP. .....upon trying this the "edit" button appears to have been removed (I cannot change my OP). So, I hereby add this:
If you are Christian, do YOU use this equation: Science can prove answer = I believe/accept scientific answer, and, Science does not yet have answer = God.
- Chris

[achilles12604]

I have heard many Christians on this forum - and elsewhere - point out supposed gaps in scientific knowledge as proof that a magical being exists. I have found that sometimes these gaps don't even exist - it is instead a gap in the knowledge of the magical being believer.

Do Christians use their own gaps in knowledge as a means to prove the existence of a magical being?

How true. And how sad.

Those Christians overlook the totally obvious point that if God does exist, then he is god of both the gaps, and what we know as well. He would be the designer of everything.

I would ask them a simple question.

If you know how a car works, does this mean that the car wasn't designed by an intelligent being?

[Confused]

I have to agree with you completely on this one. Very often it is the case that Christians rubbish evolution because they don't actually understand it. Nearly all of the classic arguments they use against evolution makes it plainly obvious that they just simply don't have a full, proper understanding of the subject. I don't claim to know everything about evolution, but I know enough to know that most of these classic arguments are absurd and easily countered.

You also raise a very good point, one which Dawkins mentions in The Gid Delusion. Just because there is a gap or just because we don't fully understand something yet does not mean that God is the only explanation. Mankind would never have progressed if everytime we came to something we didn't understand and just said "It must be God", gave up and left it at that. "God did it" is nothing more than an "I don't know" dressed up in spirituality.

While I might find the fact that many Christians truly don't understand the theory of evolution which leads to faulty insertions of gaps, I also have to add that it seems to me that many of them (as well as myself) seem to have conflicting concepts of what ID is as well. I have debated many Christians on the ID issue only to find that they don't ascribe to one portion of it or another portion of it etc... It would appear that just as the theory of evolution has evolved with an increase in scientific knowledge, the concept (Note: not theory since it isn't science) of ID has evolved right along with it. I was debating it with one severe extremist evangical Christian who applied more creationist views in it than anything else while debating with another more liberal Christian who accepted evolution and used ID just the opposite and didn't insert a God of gaps into it.

[WelshBoy]

Evolution is the theory of how things were made, not how they work achilles.

[achilles12604]

Evolution is the theory of how things were made, not how they work achilles.

Ok simple enough. Just insert "made" for "work" and the sentence reads just as well. No problem.

[Goat]

Evolution is the theory of how things were made, not how they work achilles.

Ok simple enough. Just insert "made" for "work" and the sentence reads just as well. No problem.

Of course, that example is what is known as a 'False analogy', since we KNOW that a car is built, but when it ocmes to complex organic structures, we see them form, not be built.


Cars do not reproduce themselves. There are self replicating organic molecules though.

[achilles12604]

Evolution is the theory of how things were made, not how they work achilles.

Ok simple enough. Just insert "made" for "work" and the sentence reads just as well. No problem.

Of course, that example is what is known as a 'False analogy', since we KNOW that a car is built, but when it ocmes to complex organic structures, we see them form, not be built.


Cars do not reproduce themselves. There are self replicating organic molecules though.

I was actually refering to the universe as a whole. Is that a better analogy?

Also bear in mind that this is what I would tell my fellow Christians.

[Goat]

Evolution is the theory of how things were made, not how they work achilles.

Ok simple enough. Just insert "made" for "work" and the sentence reads just as well. No problem.

Of course, that example is what is known as a 'False analogy', since we KNOW that a car is built, but when it ocmes to complex organic structures, we see them form, not be built.


Cars do not reproduce themselves. There are self replicating organic molecules though.

I was actually refering to the universe as a whole. Is that a better analogy?

Also bear in mind that this is what I would tell my fellow Christians.

Although I personally believe that God set the universe in motion, that also is a false analogy, since that is not proven/provable. Several of the scientific theories
about cosmology has indications that the universe expanding is cylical in nature. The newest one even has each 'cycle' spawn other universes. Something like this would have the universe as 'eternal'.

Since that is the case, it STILL is a false analogy. From our perspective, we can't show that the universe was designed rather than just formed.

My personal perspective is different. If you read Genesis, God's sprit went over the waters, and seperated the land from the oceans. From the viewpoint of the ancient hebrews, this was a metaphoric way of saying God seperated order and chaos. If you read Genesis, God did not create the waters (Chaos), he just brought order to it.