God in the Gaps and the scientific method

The links to videos of transitional fossils are in place, thank you everyone for your patience. I'm still finding my footing in these types of videos, so if you're confused over a particular point please watch those segments again before commenting on it. (It may be difficult to piece together, like I said, I'm relatively new at this)

Basically, the God in the Gaps theory says, "There is no KNOWN earthly explanation for phenomenon X, therefore there IS no earthly explanation for phenomenon X. (Ignoring the fact that such things usually end up having earthly explanations as time goes on) Therefore there is a supernatural force at work." Lack of evidence for any one particular NATURAL explanation is NOT evidence for a SUPERNATURAL explanation, which would actually be a skyhook as it requires an even greater explanation than that which it is invoked to explain. For this reason, even God is not a real explanation if that WAS the correct conclusion from lack of evidence.

The final line saying "There is no god in the gaps" is meant to mean that the god-in-the-gaps argument FOR the supernatural is a logical fallacy. This does not mean, however, that it is proof that the supernatural WASN'T involved. This only occurs when a naturalistic explanation IS found.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Venaloid
• science
• scientific
• method
• lancer
• Neil
• Shubin
• Your
• Inner
• Fish
• evolution
• god
• gaps
• explanation
• naturalistic
• earthly

[taylord109]

Good Video. I would like to mention though. A proof is something that must be concluded given the premises. Taking any two objects out of a large set of data and staying that there are similarity does not "Prove" that they have a connection. This is "Cherry Picking". Now I will allow this to be "Evidence for" but not "Proof of" evolution. (Point) Use the word evidence not proof. Good video though : ).

[Venaloid]

@taylord109 - Oh man, this one's a real oldie. Thanks though!

[gromitwallaby]

A "methodological naturalism" is certainly reasonable -- if all we're saying is that for THOSE things that are within the scope of natural science to explain, then there might well be a "naturalistic" explaination for it, even if it's currently unknown. But what of things not within the scope of scientific or even historic inquiry? (that is: ultimate origins, meaning, purpose, why science is able to explain at all, etc.)

[Venaloid]

If science can't explain something, what should lead us to think that any one particular belief system is any more qualified to explain it? Science, in fact, DOES explain the meaning of life as a by-product of evolution: there is none; the ideas is a construct of human ego and the desire to feel important. Science is able to explain at all because it is simply logic applied to the real world. (See my answering the 6 challenges to atheism video(s) for an explanation of where we get logic from)

[Bulbaz0r]

Great vid. Thanks.

[gromitwallaby]

"Science, in fact, DOES explain the meaning of life as a by-product of evolution: there is none;"

No: Science is simply silent on the matter. Yet you live with meaning, value, purpose every day of your life. You cannot live without it

You're saying essentialy "Science explains because science explains". In other words; a brute fact. That's a perfectly rational choice to accept it as such, but it is also reasonable to infer a personal cause behind the rational intelligibility we see.

[F1LTHYANIMAL]

great video i subbed

[Xxrr23]

great video.