To serve as a foundation for looking at "gaps" views, here are some important concepts about God and nature:
      A natural process is just a normal-appearing process.  A theist believes that God designed and created nature, and constantly sustains nature, so natural does not mean "without God."  And natural does not mean "without control" because God can guide nature so one natural result occurs instead of another natural result.
      Judeo-Christian theism, based on the Bible, claims that God has been (and is) active in the salvation history of humans, in ways that are usually natural-appearing and occasionally miraculous-appearing.  When scientists discover that natural properties are "just right" for important natural processes, a theist proposes that God should get the credit because He is responsible for this clever design of nature.  And a theist should praise God if during formative history (as in salvation history) He occasionally did things in a way that appears miraculous rather than natural.

Alvin Plantinga summarizes "the essential points of God-of-the-gaps theology:
      First, the world is a vast machine that is almost entirely self-sufficient;  divine activity in nature is limited to those phenomena for which there is no scientific, i.e., mechanical and naturalistic explanation.  [so it is "at best a kind of anemic and watered-down semideism" that "is worlds apart from serious Christian theism"]
      Second, the existence of God is a kind of large-scale hypothesis postulated to explain what cannot be explained otherwise, i.e., naturalistically.
      Third, there is the apologetic emphasis:  the best or one of the best reasons for believing that there is such a person as God is the fact that there are phenomena that natural science cannot (so far) explain naturalistically."  {source}
 

      Definitions— What does "God of the gaps" mean?

      What are the justified criticisms?  First, an "always in the gaps" view — claiming we should always assume that a science gap is a nature gap — is scientifically naive.  Second, an "only in the gaps" view — which asserts (or implies) that God works ONLY in nature gaps, that God is not active in natural process, that "natural" means "without God" so "if it isn't a miracle then God didn't do it" — is theologically unwise.  { This is the first point of Plantinga;  and Allan Harvey warns against believing "that 'natural' explanations exclude God,... [so] if God did not do some things...via direct action, he didn't do them at all" and "setting up a 'scoring system' in which any increase in scientific understanding counts as points against God" in his essay asking What does God of the Gaps mean? }  An explicit statement of only-in-the-gaps is rare, but it is the implicit basis of a common argument and it can be implied when we fail to clearly deny it.  All theists should deny this implication by emphasizing — in our doctrines and in our actual personal worldviews (the practical theology that we actually use for daily living) — that God is active in the normal-appearing natural events of everyday life, not just in occasional miracles, and that evidence for the operation of natural process in formative history is not evidence against God's activity in this history.  { A "gaps are necessary" view, which can be related but is not the same, is described in the appendix. }
      What are the unjustified criticisms?  First, a "gaps are possible" view — a humble claim that "maybe God exists, and maybe nature gaps exist" — is rational and open-minded, especially when contrasted with the only alternative, which is a claim that gaps are impossible.  Second, every theory — including a theory claiming that "in this particular historical situation a gap did occur" — should be logically evaluated based on evidence.  A theory proposing that "a nature gap did occur" should be criticized (or supported) with evidence and logic, not with a label.

      Those who use a "God of the gaps" label usually don't clarify which of the four views they are criticizing, so usually they are implicitly criticizing a "gaps are possible" view and proposing a "gaps are impossible" view, which is usually based on either a belief that:  1) God does not exist, so nature-gaps are physically impossible, or  2) God does exist, but a nature-gap is theologically impossible because God would never allow it.
      The first reason makes this view necessary for an atheist.  If a theist holds this view for the second reason — due to a belief that God created the universe so it would evolve totally by natural process (*) — instead of "gaps are impossible" it should be a "gaps are improbable" view that is held with humility.  Consistent with this humility, a fellow Christian who claims that "nature gaps are possible" or "a nature gap did occur in this particular situation" should be respected, instead of having their view disrespectfully dismissed by slapping a "God of the gaps" label on it.  {* A rejection of all miracles is not compatible with Bible-based theology, but a Bible-believing Christian can believe that God used miracles in the salvation history of humans but not in the formative history of nature. }
      In our search for truth about nature, there are functional similarities between methodological naturalism (that produces a closed science) and a "gaps are impossible" view (that converts an open search into a closed search), as explained in the appendix.

      Gaps and Wolves:  Is there a reason, based on the history of science, to avoid claiming "a gap did occur"?  In the past, some claims for nature gaps have seemed foolish after science found a natural explanation.  Should this produce a "boy who cried wolf" skepticism about current claims, and a conclusion that all claims for nature gaps will always fail?  And will some people conclude — due to a failure of claims for God "building bridges over nature-gaps" — that God doesn't exist?  { If this happens, it's due to bad theology by the "concluders" and is related to the second and third points in Plantinga's summary. }
      Yes, history does provide a reason for caution, but our theories can improve, so each current theory claiming "a nature gap" should be evaluated on its own merit, not by the weakness of past theories.  { Two more anti-wolf arguments are in the appendix. }

      Appropriate Humilty versus Unwarranted Arrogance
      As explained above, some "God of the gaps" criticisms are theologically justifiable, but others are not.  Usually the unjustifiable claims are based on the unwarranted arrogance of demanding that everyone must say "everything in the history of nature occurred due to natural process."  Any deviation from this assertion, as in a proposal that "maybe this feature was produced by a break in the continuous cause-effect chain of natural process," is ridiculed by labeling it a "God of the gaps" theory.
      Instead of this arrogance, in science and theology we should aim for a humility that is appropriate — not too little, not too much.  We can make some claims, but not others, with logically justifiable confidence.  We should try to avoid the error of believing with more certainty, or less certainty, than is warranted, as explained in this perceptive observation by Bertrand Russell: "Error is not only the absolute error of believing what is false, but also the quantitative error of believing more or less strongly than is warranted by the degree of credibility properly attaching to the proposition believed, in relation to the believer’s knowledge."
      When we ask, "Can the universe totally self-assemble itself by natural process?", the scientific and theological arguments — claiming support either for or against a 100%-natural history of the world — are not logically decisive.  In this context of uncertainty, a claim that "maybe in this situation [for which the claim is being made] nature was not 100% self-assembling" should not be ridiculed by calling it a "God of the gaps" fallacy.  If this "maybe..." claim for a nature-gap is considered to be an unworthy fallacy, it seems that the only acceptable conclusion is to state that "yes, nature was totally self-assembling, and the history of nature has NEVER included any non-natural action."  But can this bold assertion, proposing a totally natural formative history, be made with certainty?  If not, then it should be avoided, or at least it should be stated with appropriate humility instead of unwarranted arrogance.
      The importance of appropriate humility is the main theme in Sections 5A-5G — which ask "What can a Christian believe about evolution?" — in my FAQ for Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design.

      Should we say it?
      In my opinion, "God of the gaps" should be eliminated from our vocabulary because it is imprecise.  This vague phrase is overpopulated with potential meanings.  Does it refer to a "gaps are possible" view (this is theologically acceptable for a Christian theist) or a specific theory claiming "a gap did occur" (this should be evaluated using evidence and logic), or an "always in the gaps" habit (that is scientifically naive) or an "only in the gaps" view (that is theologically unacceptable and should be criticized)?
      Instead, to improve clarity in communication a critic could say that someone is implicitly endorsing a "God only in the gaps" view, or naively thinking "a science-gap is always a nature-gap," or not realizing that "a nature-gap is theologically impossible."  But simply saying "God of the gaps" is imprecise and confusing, it leads to false stereotyping because it lumps together different views instead of distinguishing between them, and it only attaches a label instead of clearly expressing a logical concern.  It can cause confusion (when a reader wonders "what is the intended meaning?") and miscommunication (when a writer intends one meaning and a reader receives another) and irritation (by those who are being wrongfully stereotyped and having their views misrepresented).  It isn't intellectually useful or spiritually edifying, so we should trash the term.

      When someone criticizes a theory by calling it a "God of the gaps" theory, ask "What exactly do you mean by this?"
      • If they are criticizing a claim that "gaps are possible so we should consider this possibility," ask "What is the alternative? Are you claiming that gaps are impossible, or do you know with certainty that a totally natural Total Evolution Of The Universe is certainly true and did occur?"
      • If they mean "only in the gaps," agree with the criticism, but check to see whether this is being proposed (it rarely is) and don't allow an either-or choice between "only in the gaps" and "never in the gaps because it's impossible" as if these were the only two choices.
      • And if they're questioning a specific historical claim that "in this situation a nature-gap did occur," you can have a respectful discussion about the scientific and/or theological merits of this claim.  Similarly, a historical claim that "in this situation a nature-gap did not occur" or "a nature-gap has never occurred" (*) should be evaluated based on its scientific and theological merits.
      * A "never in the gaps" claim could be based on a theological argument that a nature-gap is impossible (an atheist will claim that a non-existent God could not do it, while a theist can claim that God would not do it) or a scientific argument, based on evidence-and-logic, that God did not do it.
 

This page is
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/gaps-cr.htm

SEARCH THE WEBSITE