God of the Gaps Fallacy
From SkepticWiki
Contents |
[edit] Definition
God of the Gaps is an informal logical fallacy where a participant uses a lack (real or presupposed) of mundane explanation for something as evidence of supernatural intervention.
This is a fallacy because just because one is unaware of a mundane explanation, or just because a mundane explanation has not yet been found, does not mean that one does not exist. As such, it is an example of argument from ignorance.
[edit] Examples
Example 1:
- Antagonist: Scientists can't explain how primitive people could have moved the stones on Easter Island. Therefore aliens must have been involved.
Example 2:
- Antagonist: I can't see how proto-wings would have been an evolutionary advantage. Therefore God must have guided evolution.
Example 3:
- Antagonist: The Pyramids are more mathematically complicated than the science of the times. Therefore, aliens must have built them.
Example 4:
- Antagonist: I never see my roommate drinking beer, so why are we always running out? Clearly, the house must be infested by beer-drinking pixies.
The chief failing of this argument is that it presumes that today's scholarly ignorance is permanent. By its nature, scholarship is cumulative, and there will always be "gaps" in our current understanding. Unfortunately, betting that because there is a gap today, there will always be an unfillable gap that can only be explained by recourse to the supernatural has proven historically to be a bad bet.
Among the most famous uses of the "God of the Gaps" arguments are those made by creationists about the concept of a "missing link" -- transitional forms that are intermediate between accepted taxonomic categories. For example, creationists used to write at length about the so-called "gap" between birds (and other feathered creatures) and other accepted categories such as reptiles and mammals. Unfortunately, the discovery of Archaeopteryx, a feathered dinosaur with clearly reptile-like features, was a clear example of an intermediate form and added substantially to our knowledge of bird evolution.
Edward Wilson[1] describes another clear example of such a gap and its filling:
- "Prior to 1967 the fossil record had yielded no specimens of wasps or other Hymenopterous insects that might be interpreted as the ancestors of the ants. This hypothetical form was a missing link of major importance in the study of evolution. [...] In 1967 I had the pleasure of studying two specimens collected in amber (fossilized resin) from New Jersey, and dating to the late Mesozoic about 90 million years ago. They were nearly exact intermediates between solitary wasps and the highly social modern ants, and so I gave them the scientific name Sphecomyrma, meaning "wasp ant." Since that time many more Sphecomyrma specimens of similar age have been found in the United States, Canada, and Siberia, but none belonging to the modern type."
[edit] Exceptions to the Rule
Even mundane explanations for phenomena can be implausible, and may deserve to be challenged. (Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof, but ordinary claims still require ordinary proof). However, it is a form of False Dichotomy to insist that the lack of immediate mundane explanation implies a supernatural explanation. More to the point, it simply violates common sense to assume that today we know everything about any given aspect of the world that we will ever be able to know.
