Evolution Of The Gaps

Evolution can just as easily be supernatural as a creator can be. For those who do not know. Within the Christian community there is talk of Christian Science, Christian Creationism, and Intelligent Design. These are put forth as ideas or even scientific theories, that contend with the theory of evolution. The debate looks something like this:

There are a lot of things mentioned in such debates, such as faunal succession, cytochrome-c, endogenous retro-viral inserstions (ERVs), and the convergence of evidence from multiple lines of science. But in the end, humans don't know everything, and they use this to inject (x) belief. The idea goes... you can't explain everything, I can't explain everything, no one can explain everything, and thus my belief is either A) better than yours, or B) just as good.

The title of this article draws from God of the Gaps. I'll give one definition of it below.

"God of the gaps" is a theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence.

Wikipedia, God of the Gaps

The bigger picture is "Supernatural of the Gaps". You can invoke a superantural creator or a supernatural evolution to explain the other. That is, you can take gaps in scientific knowledge concerning an intelligent designer, as evidence for superantural evolution, just as much as you can take gaps in scientific knowledge regarding evolution, as evidence for a superantural creator. It's a self-defeating line of thinking.

A Fair Fight

It's always an uphill battle in a debate between science and religion. People that believe in creationism or intelligent design, they don't need to find evidence. They just need to point out that evolution can't currently explain x, y, and z. Nevermind, that no one can explain how the hell a god can exist or let alone create and think. It dosn't matter, it's an uphill battle.

So what is this article not? This article is not a debate between the theory of evolution and intelligent-design. Instead, this is evolved-design vs. intelligent-design. What I refer to as evolved-design is a non-scientific, and broader version of the theory of evolution. It is simply the idea that things evolved in some way or another. It doesn't invoke scientific evidence, but uses the same strategies as intelligent-design.

I propose that we evolved. How? I don't know, like the mechanics God, it's a mystery. Perhaps there are no mechanics. Perhaps things evolved because the universe magically evolved. But what I do know is this. Intelligeng-design cannot explain everything. And so, evolved-design is just as good of a belief or scientific theory, or whatever name you would like to bestow upon this amazing belief. At this point, there is no uphill battle. There is no need for evidence, other than the other side lacks explanation.

When it comes to debate about evolution vs. intelligent design, the superantural can be invoked to plug in the holes of both origin stories. If you can't explain something in evolution, you can say a creator agent did it. If there is something you can't explain by a creator agent, you can say they poofed into existence that way, always existed that way, or say they evolved that way through a supernatural evolution. You can combine the two. There is something known as Guided Evolution, wherein, a creator fills in all the gaps in evolution. But of course, since there is zero scientific explanation for a creator agent, you can fill in the gaps with superantural evolution. The point is that the playing field between evolution and creation is level. The fact that evolution has any scientific evidence is a 1-up.

Irreducible-Complex Intelligence

Look at a tree. Look at a bunny. Coincidence, I think not! It's not random. It must be designed. How does an eyeball evolve? How do brains evolve? Is it not safe to say it looks designed by an intelligent designer? But then, thinking on that... is it being suggested a designer can look un-designed?

Intelligent design proposes that the human brain is so complex, that it has to be designed by something even more intelligent. This implies that there must exist an entity, which can be highly intelligent, that has no so-called "irreducible-complex brain". It proposes that there is an entity that can processes information better than the human brain, but needed no designer. Or that the intelligent designer does in fact have irreducible-complex structures that give rise to its superior intelligence, but somehow evolved... or just simply exists without requiring any evolutionary processes of any kind.

Intelligent design attempts to defend a very bold conclusion. Intelligence is a characteristic that arises from something highly complex, like the brain. The intelligence of the intelligent agent arises from something that is somehow not irreducibly complex or always existed. All known intelligence, be it a characteristic of man or beast, is irreducibly complex from the perspective of intelligent design, with no known or even conceivable forms of intelligence that is not irreducibly complex, except the intelligence of the a supreme creator(s).

If we are to conclude that intelligence can exist without a complex brain/cpu/etc, or exist without evolution at all, as is the case of an intelligent agent, then why not conclude that irreducible-complexity itself can exist without intelligence, design or evolution? If you just jump to the conclusion that an intelligent designer can exist without a designer, then why can Mother Nature itself, rather than a god, or some other intelligent designer, just exist without a designer?