Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Arguing from Ignorance
In the March 2005 issue of Skeptical Inquirer, Dennis R. Trumble writes in his article "One Longsome Argument":
One popular approach enlisted by creation "scientists" is the classic all-or-nothing argument wherein proponents claim that nothing in science can be known with confidence until every last detail is described with absolute certainty. Appealing largely to those unschooled in the scientific method, critics point to such nonissues as gaps in the fossil record, poorly understood aspects of gene function, and the mystery of life's origins as reasons to view evolutionary theory as speculative or provisional. What they fail to appreciate is that scientific theories are built solely upon evidence that is actually available for study and so cannot be refuted by speculation regarding those clues that remain hidden.
As long as a theory remains consistent with observed phenomena and yields valid predictions, it must be considered a viable explanation regardless of what remains to be discovered. Thus, it is entirely irrelevant that gaps in the fossil record exist, but vitally important that those fossils that do exist make sense in the context of evolution. A single hominid fossil found among the trilobites of the Burgess Shale, for instance, would immediately throw Darwin's theory into doubt. Likewise, the fact that certain aspects of molecular genetics remain to be fully described in no way negates the fact that the substantial amount that is known about gene function is entirely consistent with evolution as we understand it today.
Yet despite the proverbial admonition against doing so, many still view the absence of evidence as evidence of absence and remain all too eager to fill this fictional void with the narrative of their choosing. Indeed, this particular brand of argumentum ad ignorantiam has long been a mainstay for creationists looking to wedge their cosmology between the narrowing gaps of scientific knowledge (an increasingly difficult task). [emphasis added]
It almost goes without saying that creationists don't understand science — if they did, it's far less likely that they would be so resolute in pushing pseudoscience for the purpose of advancing their religious agenda. Evolutionary theory explains the data which we currently have. Evolutionary theory has been adjusted over the years to take new data into account and to better explain what we already know.
Evolutionary theory does not provide a perfectly complete explanation of everything regarding life and its development, but no one who understands science will regard that as any sort of reason to consider it invalid. That is, instead, the way science works generally and is descriptive of scientific theories generally.
Read More:
Comments
What frequently blows my mind is how often creationist arguments are based not merely upon actual gaps in scientific theories, but upon gaps in their own poor understanding of the theories, which aren’t present in the actual theories.
Among my favorites is the “the big bang violates thermodynamics” argument. Do creationists honestly believe that a theory could become as widely accepted among scientists as inflation has if it had fundamental errors like that (and even if it did, that the solution would be to insert god to violate physical laws and make the big bang happen anyway)?