The Postulation of a Designer (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by John Clinch , London, Thursday, February 21, 2008, 17:04 (6118 days ago) @ George Jelliss

&quot;If we want to believe in such a being or beings, which myth do we choose to believe? There are so many possibilities we could think of. All of them are improbable compared with the minimal assumptions necessary, namely that it was all a natural process, not needing the input of any deus ex machina. &#13;&#10; &#13;&#10;In the absence of other evidence of the existence of such a being it is sensible to shelve the idea.&quot; - Couldn&apos;t agree more, George. This website seems to be based on a false premise: that the only rational response to the absence (as yet) of a credible explanation for abiogenesis (or other serious gaps in our current knowledge) is to postulate a designer outside the natural processes who decided for an unknown or unknowable reason to act upon it to kickstart evolution and maybe again at different times once it got going. That leads to the grossest caricature of an argument: the author seems to be saying that it&apos;s your accidental Boeing 747 versus an interventionist deity and the implausability of either leaves him no option but agnosticism. - But stop right there! Isn&apos;t this to fall into the same trap as the dim creationists who are fond of arguing that, because we do not understand some issues relating to the evolution of life on Earth and Genesis offers an alternative explanation, Genesis is not just the only alterative but one that deserves parity as a scientific theory? They&apos;re bonkers of course and so, I&apos;m tempted to add, are this author&apos;s reasons for being an agnostic. - Remember: an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because we don&apos;t yet understand how nature behaves is not evidence that there is no natural explanation. - This is really basic stuff. But it gets worse: when you refelct for a moment, it&apos;s the God-of-the-gaps back again! He never really seems to go away, does he? Except the gaps have got considerably tighter and they will continue to squeeze him away to nothing if this is the best his defenders can come up with! - But there is another hidden assumption that has to be acknowledged (one could call it a &quot;leap of faith&quot; if that term weren&apos;t so loaded). The serious biological disciplines around abiogenetics must be - what? - a few decades old at most. To assume that homo sapiens will not find a naturalistic explanation is a bold statement. &quot;Never&quot; is a very long time, after all. The possibilty is more than conceivable and I think it is probable. <Whisper!> There&apos;s really no need to postulate the Sky God. - If the author will permit me to be blunt, I agree with the criticism in the &quot;Are You Really An Agnostic?&quot; thread, I&apos;m afraid. He has postulated a designer, I think without any reasonable justification, so I will postulate something about him. I have to say that anyone who takes seriously the notion that, because we do not yet understand the chemical processes that gave rise to life, we are faced with &quot;blind chance&quot; or the Sky-God explanation, is basically a crypto-theist. Sorry, but this website does not read like the author is genuinely torn equally between theism and atheism. So he&apos;ll become atheist the minute the abiogeneticists come up with a plausible theory? Hmmmm... doesn&apos;t seem likely to me. The author formally adopts an agnostic position, but the false dichotomy he presents suggests to me that he really wants to be an old-fashioned theist. That&apos;s fine: I am told that religion is very comforting and I hope he will eventually find peace with his Sky God when he overcomes his doubts.