deGrasse Tyson's logic says that non-natural conclusions are arrived at entirely
due to a lack of any known sufficient natural causes. According to this nonsensical viewpoint, those who concluded that Stone Henge was the work of intelligence would be arguing from gaps (ignorance). His mistake, and it's a mistake most Intelligent Design-denialists make, is his ignoring that non-natural causes (artificiality; design) can be very reasonably
detected based, not on ignorance, but on knowledge
. This knowledge is our understanding of intentional causation and the resulting pattern it creates. This pattern is complexity coupled with specification
(referring to arrangement
It's a completely uncontroversial scientific methodology.... until its implications are considered unfavorable, in which case it goes from uncontroversial to the purported most wild and crazy idea ever conceived (I.D.).
I.D.-denialist Carl Sagan uses I.D. methodology
in his two most famous endeavors: S.E.T.I.
and Pale, Blue Dot
The former, S.E.T.I., searches throughout the (searchable) cosmos looking for anything deemed an unnatural arrangement of signals (usually pulsars) which would almost certainly signify intelligence. In other words, S.E.T.I.
is attempting to detect design
via finding an appreciable degree of complex, specified information) throughout the stoic cosmos.
In the latter, Sagan looks at the size and location of the Earth relative to the size of the universe and deems that we occupy no special (read: specific) place in the cosmos -- in other words, he's detected a lack of design
in the Earth's positioning via the absence of specification in its location amongst the universe.
What Sagan (and deGrasse) try to write off as pseudoscience (I.D.) actually follows perfectly logical, well-accepted scientific standards. The real reason they dismiss I.D. isn't because it's anti-scientific, but because they don't like its implications. The thought of the universe and/or life being designed by a Creator frightens them deeply, as it does with most atheists (or God-denialists, as I call them).
What they're doing is no different than what the fundamentalist Christian does when he rejects the age of the Earth. Rejecting science based on personal preference rather than the data. Sagan and deGrasse attempt to hide this behind strawman attacks, but those who are knowledgeable and posses critical thinking skills (such as myself) can see right through it, whereas those who lack knowledge and critical thinking (such as RidonKs and Take Your Lumps) cannot.
I've put both Carl Sagan and Neill deGrasse Tyson in their places and exposed their double-standards and hidden agendas. Kudos to me.
For those interested, the I.D.E.A. Center
further swats the "God-of-the-gap" myth (lie for Darwin?) out of the ballpark...
FAQ: Is ID a "god-of-the-gaps" argument?