Theistic Evolution: Rejecting Theistic Evolution ≠ Embracing a God of the Gaps

[ibperson]

Sorry but he’s wrong.
He said god of gaps is “natural processes have been shown to be insufficient, therefore god”. But it is actually “we haven’t yet figured out how natural processes might do it, therefore they didn’t, therefore god”.

Both may be argument from ignorance, but god of the gaps doesn’t start with *proof* that natural processes are insufficient. That’s at least suggestive and a tad stronger.

[samuelstephens]

I agree that rejecting evolution is not the same as embracing intelligent design. But you are embracing intelligent design and justifying that claim by saying "evolution can't explain everything" or "life is too complicated to have arisen naturally" or whatever. The entire video series is about "theistic evolution, " taking debunked pot shots at modern biology, and does not describe or explain the "science" of intelligent design in any detail. That _is_ an argument from ignorance, or more accurately a subset of that fallacy known as the appeal to personal incredulity. You haven't demonstrated that new information cannot be created naturally (especially in the face of a demonstrable mechanism that can do this, notably mutation). You haven't actually demonstrated design. You have no designer and no mechanism that explains the design process. You have nothing. It's an argument from ignorance. Own it.