The “God of the gaps” is the idea that God is invoked as the explanation for phenomena that science has not yet explained. It often showed up in discussions in relation to debates following the publication of On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. It has been significant in discussions between evolutionists and creationists. Now, while creationists have sometimes used it, evolutionists frequently falsely accuse creationists and intelligent design proponents of using it. Here we discuss five claims made by evolutionists that creationists use the “God of the gaps,” Along with five refutations of the claim that creationists use it.
Five Claims by Evolutionists That Creationists Use “God of the Gaps”
1. Biological Complexity
It is claimed that Creationists argue that complex biological systems could not evolve. For example: Irreducible complexity structures such as the bacterial flagellum. It is then claimed that this current lack of an explanation is treated as evidence of divine intervention. Actually, the lack of a current explanation from an evolutionary perspective is used as an argument against universal common descent as an explanation. It is also used to make a positive case for design. In other words, it is not the lack of an explanation that implies God, but rather that what we do know shows that evolutionary processes cannot do the job, but we know design can
2. Origin of Life
It is claimed that Creationists argue that because abiogenesis is not fully understood, God must have created life. They claim that scientific uncertainty about chemical origins is treated as proof of supernatural creation. Actually, the argument in this case is that the scientific evidence from statistics, chemistry, and physics demonstrates that abiogenesis is actually impossible. However, we do know from firsthand experience that intelligence is capable of building highly complex structures and systems, so it is argued that this is the best explanation from positive data.
3. Gaps in the Fossil Record
It is claimed that Creationists point to missing transitional fossils and interpret incomplete fossil evidence as evidence against evolution. While this is true, unless you, as an old-earth creationist, are claiming that God made the necessary changes to fill in the gaps, this does not qualify as a god-of-the-gaps argument. It is merely pointing to the lack of fossil evidence as evidence against universal common descent. That is actually a legitimate scientific argument.
4. Rapid Appearance of Major Groups
It is claimed that Creationists argue that the sudden appearance of animal body plans, such as the Cambrian Explosion, implies special creation. It is then claimed that unknown evolutionary mechanisms are replaced with divine action. Once again, this would only work with old-earth creationists. The actual argument is that it goes against universal common descent as an explanation, because it simply cannot explain the sudden appearance in the fossil record of these organisms. From a Young Earth Creation perspective, it would be the Genesis flood that would result in these sudden appearances, not divine creation itself.
5. Fine-Tuning in Biology
It is claimed by creationists that biological systems appear too precisely arranged to arise naturally. Evolutionists then claim that instead of exploring unknown natural processes, creationists invoke divine design. Once again, the argument is more against the ability of natural processes to do the job, rather than invoking God as an explanation. It is only by the positive knowledge that an intelligent designer would be capable of doing the job that it leads to evidence for divine creation
Five Creationist Responses Rejecting the “God of the Gaps” Accusation
1. Positive Design Inference
Creationists argue they are not appealing to ignorance but to the positive evidence of design. For example, comparing information content in DNA to human-designed information systems. This is a positive inference to what we do know, not to ignorance. For example, every information system and every bit of complex, specific information of known origin ultimately originates from an intelligent mind. Consequently, it is a positive logical conclusion to conclude that DNA is the result of an intelligent mind. In fact, it is only the refusal that comes from absolute atheistic naturalism that prevents someone from realizing this.
2. Historical Science Argument
Creationists argue that origins research is historical inference, not repeatable experimental science; therefore, explanations involve comparing competing historical models. The key in such research is finding the historical model that best explains the evidence. However, the Big Bang to man model is philosophically limited to excluding God regardless of what the evidence is.
3. Philosophical Naturalism as a Limitation
Creationists argue that origins science often assumes philosophical naturalism, excluding God by definition. Therefore, they reject design explanations by a philosophical decision rather than a scientific one. This is a very critical limitation; it literally excludes God by definition.
4. Evolutionary “Naturalism of the Gaps.”
Creationists often point out that evolutionists also use a “gaps” approach, where when mechanisms are unknown, they assume future natural explanations will appear. I personally have seen this with any part of the Big Bang to Man evolutionary story. Whenever you point to some area where naturalistic explanations give every evidence of failing, the response often is that a natural explanation will be found someday. In other words, they are filling in a gap in knowledge with an imaginary future naturalistic explanation.
5. Design Arguments Do Not Depend on Unknowns
Creationists argue that their case is based on known properties of intelligence, such as information generation and engineering-like structures. Thus the argument is framed as inference to the best explanation, not simply filling ignorance with God. Ultimately, design arguments are based on our own experience with designing things. We know that highly specifically complex systems are the product of intelligent minds. We have never seen such systems come about by natural processes. In fact, all we have ever seen is natural processes, such as wear and tear, destroying such systems rather than producing them.
Philosophical Issues Underlying the Debate
The difference between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism. Methodological naturalism is a preference for finding natural explanations for phenomena. It is a recognition of the fact that natural processes are the normal way in which the universe works. However, it does not prevent drawing a supernatural conclusion if the evidence or situation warrants it. For example, if you are studying a purported supernatural event, it doesn't force you to invent a naturalistic explanation regardless of the evidence. Metaphysical naturalism, on the other hand, is the idea that natural processes are all that exist. It precludes supernatural explanations before evidence is ever looked at. It also excludes God as a possible explanation, making it inherently atheistic.
The role of inference to the best explanation in historical sciences is critical to doing proper research. To conduct such research, you cannot limit yourself to a subset of possible explanations just because you do not like the broader possibilities. Metaphysical naturalism results in just such a limit because it only allows for naturalistic explanations. However, inference to the best explanation allows supernatural explanations such as God to be considered if they are indeed the best explanation.
There are limits to scientific explanations when it comes to dealing with the past simply because we cannot recreate it. In fact, when trying to recreate a past event in the lab, the best we can do is determine whether or not a natural explanation is possible. Even if one is, it does not necessarily mean that it is the correct explanation. One reason for this is that an intelligent designer could create something that could occur naturally, but maybe is highly unlikely.
Conclusion
The “God of the gaps” accusation remains a central rhetorical point in origins debates. However, it is seldom used by creationists as an actual argument. Sure, you have some who do not really understand the issues that may actually still use it, but that is the exception rather than the rule.
Part of the problem is that evolutionists view design arguments as appeals to ignorance. They do this even though it is not. Design arguments are actually arguments from what we know about complex, specific systems and information rather than ignorance.
Creationists argue that their arguments are positive design inferences, not gaps-based reasoning. The point is that when you look at actual creationist arguments, they are positive in nature and not appeals to ignorance. Part of the problem is that most evolutionists do not actually read creationist material, but everything that they know about creationists comes from reading anti-creationist material.
The disagreement ultimately reflects deeper differences about the scope and assumptions of science. The evolutionary perspective is based on inherently atheistic metaphysical naturalism. This completely excludes God as even a possibility. Because creationism allows for the possibility of divine involvement in the natural world, it opens the door to possibilities that are not even allowed by metaphysical naturalism. This is what is at the heart of the origins debate, not really science.
