For some reason I can't reply to your longer comment below, where you say:
> I thought tjradcliffe might consider phrasing his comments more courteously next time.
That actually was my more courteous phrasing :-)
But I appreciate your civility, and in retrospect I should have left out "disingenously", which is needlessly inflamatory and distracting. I'll edit the comment to remove it. [Edit: unfortunately I guess there is a time-limit on the editability of comments, which has passed, so it'll have to stand as a permanent monument to my inherent irritability.]
However, I do believe "the God of the Gaps" is an instance of question-begging: people who use it attempt to build the assumption "anything that cannot be explained by current physics must be assigned to God" into the mutually accepted context of the argument. They assume--and ask their opponent to assume--what they are setting out to prove, which is what "question begging" is.
This is very much the mode of argument used by people promoting peaceful ancient civilizations, which only crop up in areas of ignorance, and which have a tendency to be proven false when more information becomes available--the Maya are not unique in this regard, but merely the most prominent example. This makes the point relevant to the article under discussion.
I'll plug my book here as you sound like the kind of reader I was aiming for: http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Theorem-TJ-Radcliffe-ebook/dp/... , which as well as engaging in some egregiously speculative biology was written in part as a (hopefully) respectful attempt to engage intelligent and humane believers with alternative viewpoints on the relationship between science, religion, scripture and God (which was a struggle for me... I'm not an inherently respectful person, and clearly have more work yet to do.)
I'll forgo rebutting except to say that "science or it doesn't exist" (not that you believe it) only works if you have a fully materialist viewpoint, which is another form of begging the question. It also precludes the possibility that the Creator likes internally his physical reality internally consistent.
I mention that to say that I think a bit of humility about the limits of our "proof" helps us treat each other better. Which has to happen if we're going to have productive conversation.
> I thought tjradcliffe might consider phrasing his comments more courteously next time.
That actually was my more courteous phrasing :-)
But I appreciate your civility, and in retrospect I should have left out "disingenously", which is needlessly inflamatory and distracting. I'll edit the comment to remove it. [Edit: unfortunately I guess there is a time-limit on the editability of comments, which has passed, so it'll have to stand as a permanent monument to my inherent irritability.]
However, I do believe "the God of the Gaps" is an instance of question-begging: people who use it attempt to build the assumption "anything that cannot be explained by current physics must be assigned to God" into the mutually accepted context of the argument. They assume--and ask their opponent to assume--what they are setting out to prove, which is what "question begging" is.
This is very much the mode of argument used by people promoting peaceful ancient civilizations, which only crop up in areas of ignorance, and which have a tendency to be proven false when more information becomes available--the Maya are not unique in this regard, but merely the most prominent example. This makes the point relevant to the article under discussion.
I'll plug my book here as you sound like the kind of reader I was aiming for: http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Theorem-TJ-Radcliffe-ebook/dp/... , which as well as engaging in some egregiously speculative biology was written in part as a (hopefully) respectful attempt to engage intelligent and humane believers with alternative viewpoints on the relationship between science, religion, scripture and God (which was a struggle for me... I'm not an inherently respectful person, and clearly have more work yet to do.)