(original post 23 Sep 2019)
Have you ever been in a discussion / debate, given “God” as a response, and been accused of using “God-of-the-gaps” to argue your point? For many of us, the answer is a resounding “yes!” “The ‘God-of-the-gaps’ argument refers to a perception of the universe in which anything that currently can be explained by our knowledge of natural phenomena is considered outside the realm of divine interaction, and thus the concept of ‘God’ is invoked to explain what science is, as yet, incapable of explaining.[1]”
Understand that if you feel cornered in a discussion and don’t know how to respond, “I don’t know” is an honest and acceptable answer. It’s okay to not have a response; no one is perfect with complete knowledge and wisdom of everything. It’s during times like these that we should make note of what we weren’t able to answer and become studious in researching how to respond to the question(s) in the future.
What’s often overlooked in this situation, however, is that skeptics and atheists are guilty of using this same “gaps” argument when they respond with “evolution” or “science” to a question. This is time to push back by asking a clarifying question, i.e. “what do you mean by ‘evolution’ or ‘science’? Simply pulling out either of these two terms does not end the debate on the topic; they’ve given a vague response and it is diligent of us to probe further. Don’t let them off the hook! They need to explain what they mean and defend their claim. Appealing to “evolution” or “science” is not a sufficient answer, but often people decline to pursue this further.
When the person invokes “evolution” as the response, what exactly do they mean? Darwinian evolution, Neo-Darwinian evolution, microevolution, etc? Evolution is a very broad term. If they mean microevolution, we may concede the point as microevolution is observed within a species and deals with “changes over time” (a simple definition of the term evolution). If, on the other hand, they mean macroevolution (change from one species to another with a common single-cell ancestor), this type of evolution is neither proven, nor has it been observed. Macroevolution follows along Darwin’s work with the expectation that transitory fossils would be discovered to verify the theory. Huge nail in the coffin—no such fossils have been found in the 150+ years it was theorized. In fact, the fossil record shows a sudden, rapid increase in diverse species, but the root of the family tree does not converge with one common ancestor. Instead there are numerous family trees with distinct creatures at the root and the diverse descendants branching out. For more information regarding this, please check out the work of the Discovery Institute regarding the Cambrian Explosion.
The gaps argument is similar when the other person appeals to “science” finding an answer given more time. If a Christian doesn’t have an answer and invokes “God,” this is not accepted. But if a skeptic / atheist invokes “science” because they don’t have an answer, this is okay? Nope, not in the least. Science is a vague term as well so push back on the response. “What do you mean by ‘science’?…Biology, forensic, chemistry, psychology, medical, physics, geology, meteorology, quantum, botany, environmental, zoology, etc? Science is very broad and this appeal should not go unchallenged. Frank Turek frequently states that “science doesn’t say anything, scientists do.” Oxford dictionary defines “science” as “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.[2]” When the experiment is done and the data collected, the next step is interpreting the data. This is where philosophy, presuppositions, and the scientist’s worldview are applied (if they haven’t already played a role in steering the experiment, which would be biased from the start and the results would not be objective). To illustrate how worldview impacts interpretation of scientific data consider the evolution versus intelligent design debate. Two camps of scientists, looking at the same data, yet coming to different conclusions.
Another quick point: I want to focus on the “needs more time” claim. What’s amazing is that in recent decades, archaeologists (field of science) have discovered remains of places and people which are listed in the Bible. Such discoveries have provided stronger evidence for the truthfulness of the Bible. Additionally, since Darwin knew nothing about DNA, research regarding DNA have uncovered its codified existence, and research into cellular operations have found that cells have parts of them with precise and purposeful activity which lends more readily to design rather than random forces.
Remember when you push back on a person trying to skate by a topic by answering with “evolution” or “science” that you are respectful and humble when you do so. It could be easy to make a snide or mocking comment or rhetorical question but that doesn’t further the conversation and makes the other person more defensive. This could quickly digress into ad hominem (attacking the person instead of the merits of the argument) and you lose the conversation.
Paul instructed Timothy to “study to show thyself approved unto God” (2Tim 2:15). In context, Paul is referring to Timothy being well versed in the Scriptures, which we all should be as well as Christians. This principle can (and should) also apply to other areas of knowledge, training, wisdom, and understanding. One doesn’t need a PhD in philosophy to find the errors in reasoning and logic OR recognize logical fallacies when they are used. Without some familiarity and experience, though, you don’t know what to look for and may let the other person get away with using bad logic and “win” the debate while you feel utterly defeated. We have the same tools and resources available to aid in our witness; take some initiative to learn and become confident to make your point, knowing you can rationally defend it if challenged to do so.
In Christ!
Way Truth Life Apologetics 
Leave a comment