We’ve all heard of the 'God of the Gaps,' but there is a far more pervasive silent player in modern academia. Here, we dissect how unproven materialism masquerades as objective science to bridge massive voids in empirical data. It is time to look behind the curtain at the philosophical commitments that treat gaps in our knowledge as evidence for a physicalist reality.
Think science is always based on hard evidence? What if some of our most 'scientific' theories are actually powered by blind faith? Today, we are exposing the 'Naturalism of the Gaps' logical sleight of hand that replaces missing data with materialist assumptions. Is your worldview built on facts, or just a secular mirror of the very dogmas it claims to reject?
There is a massive leap of faith hiding in plain sight within the scientific community, and almost no one is talking about it. When physical evidence fails, many researchers rely on an unwavering commitment to naturalism to fill the void. Join us as we explore why this unproven materialism isn't actually science, but a sophisticated placeholder for the things we simply cannot explain yet.
The Inversion of Science
The problem we are seeing is that in many ways science has shifted from a method of inquiry to a rigid metaphysical dogma. The problem started with Methodological Naturalism, where, as a matter of practice, you assume that in any study involving natural processes there will be a natural explanation. Now this is fine as long as you are studying the present-day regular functioning of the universe. However, this could become a problem when dealing with the past, and particularly when dealing with events that have historically been considered supernatural.
The problem is that Methodological Naturalism has been largely replaced by philosophical naturalism. This is a fundamentally atheistic philosophical perspective that completely excludes even the possibility of anything supernatural, particularly God. This has led much of science, particularly those areas dealing with origins, to become an effort to force a totally naturalistic explanation on everything regardless of the evidence. Everything is automatically assumed to be explainable by a totally natural phenomenon no matter how convoluted the explanation may be. Furthermore, when no naturalistic explanation is forthcoming, they simply assume that there is a natural explanation that will be discovered someday, leading to any explanations that include God or anything else supernatural being summarily dismissed, even if it is the best explanation for the evidence at hand.
This blind faith, a natural explanation that will be discovered someday, is known as Naturalism of the Gaps. Naturalism of the Gaps is the secular twin to God of the Gaps. “God of the Gaps” is the act of filling in any lack of an explanation with God, while not providing any way in which He provides an explanation. “Naturalism of the Gaps” is the act of filling in any lack of an explanation with an unknown natural explanation, while not providing any way in which it provides an explanation. The irony of this is that they are using faith-based materialism to "prove" the absence of faith.
The Anatomy of a Materialist Leap
The biggest Example of “Naturalism of the Gaps” Shows up in the context of the origin of life by way of abiogenesis. This is probably the single highest-stakes scientific void, where there is absolutely no real evidence that it happened, how it could happen, and plenty of reasons to conclude that it's impossible. Whenever presented with the complete lack of even a semi-functional model of how it could have occurred. Every attempt ever made has immediately demonstrated flaws when they are looked at closely
However, the blind faith that a naturalistic explanation will eventually be found provides a great deal of needed psychological comfort because the only real alternative is “in the beginning God.” This is an explanation that they have already ruled out as even being an option; consequently, regardless of the evidence, they will insist that a naturalistic explanation will be found someday.
One of the ways to spot “Naturalism of the Gaps” in action is that when confronted with the lack of an explanation or evidence, they will confidently state that it will be discovered someday. Another example is that they will speak of present speculative hypotheses as settled empirical facts. They will always speak of these speculative hypotheses as proven fact, while resulting in ridicule if you even dear to question it.
The Secular Mirror Image
“Naturalism of the Gaps” and “God of the Gaps” are definitely mirror images of one another. While the “God of the gaps” involves attributing all unknowns to God, “Naturalism of the Gaps” involves attributing all unknowns to as yet undiscovered natural processes. The primary difference is that one is theological and the other is secular. The essential reasoning of both concepts is essentially the same, as they are just plugging the unknown with different plugs. “God of the gaps” is particularly common among old earth creationists such as progressive creationists, who show a real tendency to use any gap in secular understanding with a “God did it” moment. On the secular side, atheists in particular show a real tendency to use any gap in their understanding with a “nature did it” moment.
The scientific establishment often treats skepticism toward materialism as a heresy rather than a critique. This tendency shows up particularly in dealings with the intelligent design movement. This is strongly seen among the scientific establishment and among those who blindly follow whatever they claim is true, where a burn the heretics type attitude often shows up. The editor of one scientific journal was actually fired for publishing an intelligent design paper that passed peer review.
One common tactic that is used against anybody who dares question absolute naturalism is to unfairly shift the burden of proof to those questioning the naturalist status quo. A good example of this is the insistence of proving the existence of God, beyond the evidence for an intelligent designer in the current circumstances, before such is even allowed to be considered. Usually, with those making such demands, no evidence will be sufficient for the existence of God, and therefore it is simply a way of summarily dismissing the argument.
Consequences of the Philosophical Filter
The pre-existing materialist commitments limit the scope of legitimate scientific research. First of all, enforcing a totally naturalistic and inherently atheistic explanation on the data regardless of what the evidence actually indicates. For example, there are many things in biology, such as the bacterial flagellum, that scream, “I was designed by an intelligent designer,” but that explanation is not allowed to even be considered within the scientific and academic establishment. In fact, even including it as a possible explanation in public school curriculum will result in a court case, where only the atheistic naturalistic explanation will be allowed to be taught.
One of the consequences of this philosophical filter is that funding and peer review have biases in favor of physicalist explanations over anomalous data. This results in the appearance of only naturalistic explanations receiving funding and peer review. This is particularly true when you start defining science and scientific evidence purely by whether or not it is approved by the proper journals.
The real danger of the complete dismissal of alternative frameworks without trial is the stagnation of innovation. For example, the abundance of evidence of the design within living systems, along with the statistical and other impossibilities of both abiogenesis and universal common descent. These totally naturalistic materialistic perspectives continue to be pushed because the only alternative is dead on arrival without even being allowed to be considered. This stifles possible research in alternative directions while forcing the continuation of researching directions that realistically are total dead ends, that are propped up by an interpretive framework, along with the complete blocking of the alternative. Even a simple admission that “a natural explanation is impossible” is not allowed by the establishment framework. In their minds, it must exist, and this enhances the Naturalism of the Gaps.
Reclaiming the Scientific Method
What is necessary in science is to reclaim the Scientific Method by returning to true neutral inquiry where the evidence leads to the conclusion rather than the philosophy. What is necessary is that if the data suggests a supernatural explanation of something, then that line of research needs to be allowed to be followed rather than forcing a totally naturalistic Explanation on the data.
One of the keys is distinguishing between the hard data and the interpretive narrative layered on top of it. Part of the problem is that science reporting and education not only fail to make such a distinction, but they seem to go out of their way to make it look like the interpretive narrative is the data.
The simple fact of the matter is that a more humble and honest approach to the massive unknowns of the universe is needed over what we see now. It takes a high level of pride to think that there is nothing that you cannot solve. The objection is that of giving up too quickly, but there is a difference between assuming you can solve a problem and pridefully insisting on it to the point of wasting time and energy on a hopeless endeavor. What is needed is the humility to at least be willing to accept the possibility of the existence of a higher intelligence; God, who designed, created, and operates the universe, and is ultimately beyond the possibility of naturalistic explanations.
A vague natural explanation is just as unfalsifiable as a vague supernatural explanation.
One of the claims that is frequently made against supernatural explanations is that they are unfalsifiable. Actually, this is not true; first of all, they are confusing supernatural for magical, where there's no process and no distinguishing results. Furthermore, they are simply referring to the vague notion of the supernatural, while dismissing the possibility of specific events. However, it turns out that a totally naturalistic but extremely vague explanation is just as unfalsifiable as an equally vague supernatural explanation. Ultimately, there is no real difference; it is purely a question of how vague or specific the explanation is.
How supernatural explanations can be included in science!
Ultimately, the question is whether supernatural explanations can be included in science. The way to answer this question is: can supernatural explanations work within the scientific method? The automatic reaction of those who insist on absolute naturalism in science is that the answer is no; however, it turns out that it really is possible. For a supernatural explanation to be falsifiable, it simply needs to be specific enough about what happened to produce physical consequences that are falsifiable. The simple fact of the matter is that this can be done as long as it is specific. Now this does not mean jumping to supernatural conclusions without justification. It simply means that such explanations can be scientific if they are specific enough to produce testable predictions.
Dr. Russell Humphreys’ Dynamic decay theory of planetary magnetic fields is an excellent example of this. This theory starts out with the supernatural act of God creating all the planets out of water. He then aligned the magnetic fields of the water molecules to create a united magnetic field. When it begins to collapse, the magnetic field generates an electric current in the water that God then turns into the material of the planet. This gives each planet and the sun a maximum starting magnetic field based on their mass. These magnetic fields would have decayed over time due to electrical resistance. This model is specific enough that despite having supernatural elements, it makes physical predictions about the magnetic fields of every planetary body in the solar system. Not only do they all match what the model clearly says they should be, but this model of planetary magnetic fields accurately predicted the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune before the Voyager II flybys, even though the dynamo theory missed on its prediction of Uranus. The point is that you have a scientifically viable and falsifiable theory that has a highly specific supernatural act of God at its foundation.
Conclusion
“Naturalism of the Gaps” has the same flawed reasoning as the “God of the Gaps.” Both are nothing but totally blind faith, using whatever you have faith in to fill in the gaps in existing knowledge. There are any number of such gap fillers that could exist. You could have a “Santa Claus of the gaps,” an “Easter Bunny of the gaps,” or a “Flying Spaghetti Monster of the gaps.” The point is that all you are doing is filling in gaps in knowledge with a challenging object of faith. It needs to be noted that creation science, despite claims of some evolutionists, is much more than a “God of the Gaps” because it is much more than filling in gaps in our knowledge with God. “Naturalism of the Gaps” results from the same flawed logic, and it is just another form of gap filler.
