Wrong. Behe’s or Meyer’s arguments are not god of the gap arguments.
They have the following structure:
Some biological structures have a large a amount of functional information.
Intelligent causes are the only known causes capable of producing such large amounts of functional information. Therefore, based on what is known about cause-and-effect relationships, it can legitimately be inferred that these biological structures are the product of an intelligent cause. Again, the important point here is that this conclusion is based on our knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships, so it is by no means a god of the gap argument.
I think that is what Tim means by a God-of-the-gaps argument. There are a few issues at play here. When scientists consider theories, they put them to the test using experiments that will result in empirical data that will argue that something (their theory) has been validated. So, when they ask for “arguments” for ID or id, they are hoping to see an experiment that results in evidence that an intelligence has been involved.
When the rest of us have conversations about what we see in the universe and how it came about, we see indications of design and order that we understand as coming from intelligence. So, in our realm we can say that something makes sense to us and it can be significant, but in the realm of science, it is not enough to say we can prove that “A” did not happen, ergo “B.”
Furthermore, there are many posts here where the assertion that “such large amounts of functional information” cannot have come about naturally. So, you don’t have agreement regarding your initial condition. I think that this explains much of the misunderstandings that we have here. We are looking at words like “argument for” and “explanation” an using different definitions.
2 Likes
@swamidass, they are not off-topic. I am, nonetheless, particularly curious to hear from those who affirm evolution. If there are a good number of responses from both camps, it will be interesting to compare and contrast them. Thank you for your concern, though. 
2 Likes
Presumably you’re referring to the two rounds of polyploidy. But would you also say that the 5% of plant speciations that result from polyploidy is also an information gain that can’t be explained naturally? If not, what’s the difference?
2 Likes
Says who and when was that established?
1 Like
No. I invite you to read the link to Gpuccio’s post at Uncommon Descent. It is a gem!
I don’t see where it’s shown that evolution can’t produce these “information jumps”.
1 Like
It’s actually quite simple.
You need a theory which make as good or better predictions than evolution. And you need the theory to set a direction for research.
Whether you call it “A theory of intelligent design” or “a theory of fuggledywhoop” doesn’t actually matter. It needs to make good predictions and to usefully direct research.
4 Likes
Gpuccio demonstrates that the information jump associated to only 6 proteins during the vertebrate transition is equal to 6000 bits.
6000 bits correspond to a search space of 2^6000, IOWs about 10^2000, a number so big that we cannot even begin to visualize it.
It goes without saying that finding the right target in such an incredibly large space is an impossible task for an unguided process such as RV + NS, even allowing the time of the universe. However, such task can be easily done by an intelligent agent.
Why do you think it’s a target?
2 Likes
Oh my. I’m not an evolutionary biologist but even I can see the massive logic-leaps in that mathematical argument. I will leave it to the scientists here to articulate a better explanation than what I could muster. I’m always interested in seeing how those more familiar with a topic can present the concepts in ways which non-scientists can grasp.
What does [how big the continent is] have to do with [how frequently useful stones can be found on it]?
You’re only telling me how big the space of sequences of that length is, you’re not telling me anything about where the search begins(how far away from these sequences), how densely packed the space is with other useful sequences(so others of a similar complexity could have been found, if other combinations of mutations had happened), or whether other useful sequences that had already evolved functionally overlapped with these ones, or were close in proximity.
4 Likes
That’s a godawful argument. In fact, it is not an argument at all.
Nonetheless, there is probably no better argument for ID, so you take what you can, I guess.
1 Like
To explain that connection, I’d need more than a single word “therefore.” I am certain I mean it in a different way than you think I mean it.
2 Likes
Clearly, you didn’t grasp Gpuccio’s argument. I urge you to read his post carefully; it is worth it.
@J.E.S , I have some problems with the very premise of your question.
If ID is definitely false, why would one expect there to be any good arguments for it?
Moreover, why would someone affirm evolution if they believed there were good arguments for ID?
1 Like
I grasp it just fine. Nowhere does Gpuccio or you answer my questions.
3 Likes
@Art and @nwrickert both responded… possibly some think that some discussion is better than none?
Furthermore, even if you assume that it is false, having the means to validate or falsify it is important.
Exactly. And until all of that is demonstrated through falsification testing and the rigors of peer-review, “Intelligent Design Theory” remains a set of philosophical arguments, not a scientific theory.
And that is my biggest beef with ID: it is a philosophical stance (largely driven by theological objectives) which happens to make non-rigorous appeals to various scientific topics but never actually publishes a comprehensive scientific theory which interacts with the massive volumes of available evidence nor is it ever accompanied by careful descriptions of the necessary falsification testing. The general public for the most part lacks the knowledge and experience to distinguish real science from philosophy presentations which happen to refer to scientific phenomena. That’s why books like Darwin’s Doubt impress laypersons but not the scientific community.
When ID discussions stay within the philosophical and theological realm, I have no major beefs with ID----even while not necessarily agreeing with all of those arguments. It is when it unjustifiably claims to be good science that I protest loudly.
5 Likes
For those who are still deciding whether to read this “gem” of a paper, the whole thing can be summarized in this quote:
Therefore, with all the caution that is required, we can say that the information which can be found in both cartilaginous fish and bony fish, but not in non vertebrates (including early chordates), must have been generated in a window of less that 100 my, say between 540 my ago and 450 my ago. Now, my point is very simple: we can safely state that in that window of less than 100 million years a lot of new complex functional information was generated. Really a lot.
That’s it. That’s the whole argument. He goes on to continue to wave his hands around and give examples of really a lot! of information that he is convinced could not have been produced by evolution, but with not even an attempt to explain how he comes to that conclusion, except by the presumption that evolution cannot produce really a lot! of information without the help of God.
Same of ID creationist stuff, IOW.
Feel free to read if you still want to.
5 Likes