[Raymond Hendrix]

Why do Darwinists insist on calling the logical conclusion of intelligent design in the complicated informational based machinery of life a "god in the gaps" theory? You are evidently seeking to put God in a box or testube so that he can jump through hoops to your satisfaction. If there is a God then he may or can be active within or without natural processes. How can you say where and when intelligent input is and is not? The intelligent input for instance in the computer program I am using at the moment is hidden but it is nevertheless obviously the product of an intelligent programer. The instances of where it is necessary can be traced back just as assumptions as to where intelligent intervention is necessary can be made in the biological world. This is true regardless of whether the various machines now operate naturally (or automatically)at the present time.

America's Other Jesus

[nimdoc]

Why do Darwinists insist on calling the logical conclusion of intelligent design in the complicated informational based machinery of life a "god in the gaps" theory?

Darwinists (or at least I do) insist on calling ID "god of the gaps" because that’s what it is. Go read up on Dembski’s “Explanatory Filter”: If you can’t explain it by natural law, then try chance. If it can’t be chance it must be ID.

Where in this scheme is the humble scientist allowed to say, “Gee, that’s neat! I wonder how it could ever work? Maybe if a I write a new grant proposal and ….”

The point is there are lots of things that we don’t understand. But who is to say that we will never understand? Ignorance is conquered by study, trial and error, and an open mind, not superstition. If the ID people had their way, all biochemical research may as well come to a screeching halt. “Hey man, God built it this way. I’ll never be able to find out how it works.”

I don’t understand, therefore He is.

What a copout!