Talk:God of the gaps

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Question

Who developed this term? Where is it used? RickK | Talk 22:26, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Google gives 5000+ hits, many very interesting. Recommend http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/09/davies.htm Moriori 23:32, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Removed text

God of the gaps or God in the gaps holds that there are important gaps in scientific knowledge. The claim is that since these gaps cannot be filled by man, a god must be invoked to account for the existence of these mysteries. In reality, gaps in knowledge have become smaller. Science repeatedly produces mundane, natural explanations for what seemed like mysterious events over centuries and there is no apparent reason that remaining “mysteries” such as extra-sensory perception, the origins of life and the universe, or stigmata, will not be explained by scientific explanation.

This was listed on cleanup as being POV, and I agree. I hope I've done better, but it's difficult. Andrewa 09:14, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] More removed

There was an extra paragraph about creationism and God of the gaps proving more and more creationism and then ending up with a with Occam's Razor saying it all made sense. It was fairly obviously POV. Initially I was going to correct the Occam's Razor comment but after rereading the paragraph noted that it was all pretty unsavable. Occam's Razor called for the simpliest argument without bias to explain what is meant by God of the gaps. Tat 08:19, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Creationist response?

The "god of the gaps" is a philosophical argument made by scientists / atheists. We have a reference for the factuality of that statement in the article. The second paragraph is (an NPOV phrasing of) a creationist rebuttal to the argument. I wonder whether it is appropriate here. Probably it is, but I'm not totally sure. Anyway, it would be nice to have a reference documenting the fact the creationists actually bother to reply to the "god of the gaps" argument. Otherwise, it's original research. Dbenbenn 20:17, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

just a modified version of the Cosmological argument ... every cause has another cause ... but the gap never goes away ... it just gets bigger and bigger ... Ungtss 21:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What's with the rebuttle again. A real rebuttle is one thing and perfectly fine. The rationalization of theists is one thing but creationist? It overly specific to a group. The counter should simply be the rationalizations of people who don't believe it. Also you state "the gap never goes away... it just gets bigger and bigger", this tells me you have no clue what you're talking about. The argument is the gaps get smaller and smaller. God of the gaps has very little to do with the Cosmological argument. It's explanations for things not cause and effect. Theistic responces need to get covered but that paragraph is just bad. Tat 04:34, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
umm ... let's let the rebutters write their own rebuttal, shall we?
<< The counter should simply be the rationalizations of people who don't believe it.>>
no, i think the counter should be very simply "why this argument fails on a logical basis."
<<The argument is the gaps get smaller and smaller.>>
the rebuttal is that the gap is getting bigger and bigger. the more we learn, the more we're discovering how complex and intricate the world is, and the less likely it's appearing that it came about by chance. whether the paragraph is bad or not is your pov. i find it rather compelling. Ungtss 19:34, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the gaps are shrinking, and many of them have been closed up completely. It only appears that more gaps are forming because, in the process of stitching up the known gaps, we have been noticing others that were already there. Really, which makes more sense: filling up the gaps using confirmable observations of the universe and inferences based upon those observations, or simply writing "God did it" in the blanks and considering it fixed? Jesin 19:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why the paragraph should not be used.

Theists see the "god of the gaps" argument in a different light.

This isn't a different light, it's ignoring the the God of the gaps problem. That's not rebuttal.
god of the gaps depends on the assumption that the gap is getting smaller. the rebuttal very clearly says that the gap exists, and is getting bigger, making design more reasonable and naturalism less reasonable over time. that's a full-on rebuttal. Ungtss 03:59, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They argue that every step in the development of science has uncovered greater and greater evidence of design; for example, the God of the Gaps that created the geocentric universe pales in comparison to the God of the Gaps that created the universe as we now understand it.

That's not God of the Gaps. That's simply God. God of the Gaps refers to a deity given credit for things not explained by science. When people thought that God caused the sun to move across the sky would be a more powerful deity does nothing in the situation. The earth simply spins and makes it look like that. That's God of the Gaps. The argument that more complexity in the universe just means God is more powerful is fine. But, it's not a God of the Gaps rebuttal.
yessir it is a rebuttal. our view of God as the "gap" in our knowledge is GROWING. Ungtss 03:59, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They argue that if the gap were getting smaller with scientific advances, one could expect it to ultimately disappear.

This is what is argued by the promoters of God of the Gaps.
right. and since the premise fails, the conclusion fails. Ungtss 03:59, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, however, every step of science has made the gap bigger, making belief in design more reasonable, and belief in naturalism less reasonable.

Beyond being patently untrue, this also doesn't address the issue. Simply because the world is more complex doesn't mean science has stopped explaining something which use to be attributed to God.
right. but it's saying that for every answered question, 10 new questions are uncovered, so that although the gap MOVES, it is not getting smaller. religion may be WRONG about what God DID, and science helps refine that ... but science isn't proving that there is no God -- on the contrary, it's making belief in God more reasonable. Ungtss 03:59, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They argue that while Creationism requires the assumption of a single enormously powerful creator,

You started out refering to Theists, mostly because the rebuttal to "god of the gaps" would be a theistic rebuttal then you switch back to creationism from theism.
i just changed creationist to theist to try and make you happy. sorry i missed one. Ungtss 03:59, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

naturalism requires the assumption of innumerable unknown sources and causes for the intricately interwoven nature of the universe. They conclude that since Occam's razor prefers the theory requiring the fewest discrete assumptions, theism is more reasonable than naturalism.

Occam's razor says the simplist explanation is the best. Not the one containing the fewest discrete assumption. The single assumption "God makes stars twinkle" is fewer than nuclear fusion in stars, alteration of the light as it enters the atmosphere, and those alterations being interpreted by the eye as "twinkling". This misinterpretation of Occam's Razor is fairly common in Creationist circles.
<<Occam's razor says the simplest explanation is the best>>
um ... you're clearly misinterpretting occam's razor yourself. it doesn't say that simplest explanation is the best. "God makes stars twinkle" is clearly the simplest. occam's razor says don't assume more than you have to. And if you can explain things without assuming God, go ahead, but don't make a million assumptions about nature just so you don't have to assume God. Occam was as Christian, by the way. Ungtss 03:59, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Finally, I looked for several hours to find your sources and finally just found some actual rebuttals to the argument. I am fairly certain you personally wrote that paragraph without actually seeing any creationist make such an argument. Which seems more likely as you were quick to convert that same paragraph to be a theist rebuttal. In which case it would fall under original research. My rebuttal is taken from a number of sources and paraphrases some of SkepticalChristian's work (best rebuttal I found). A link which I added to the article as it firstly addresses the argument and secondly is very well written. Also, you stated, in so many words, that you should write the rebuttal. Making me think that that is your own personal rebuttal. I can't find creationism addressing God in the Gaps in any detail, could you source your work? Feel free to PoV the rebuttal a bit more if you feel it needs it but stop sticking in that paragraph that doesn't even address the problem. Tat 01:33, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

whatever makes you happy:). Ungtss 03:59, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is the Plato/Aristotle paragraph appropriate?

Ungtss has included in the section on theist rebuttal arguments about teleology including a rehash of a section from the linked article. There are two questions we need to answer: 1) Can we consider Plato and Aristotle to be theists or dealing with this question at all? 2) Is teleology a specific attack on God of the gaps or is it more appropriately an attack on philosophical naturalism?

From my end, it seems clear that one can believe in teleology and still dislike the concept of a "God of the gaps" and see certain arguments as problematic in that regard. One can, in fact, be a creationist and make the "God of the gaps" argument against others (as many YECs make against the OECs). While teleology may be worth mentioning in the article, it may also be misleading to include this paragraph.

Comments? Joshuaschroeder 23:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

there is no substance in the above. the attributed summary of plato's argument goes directly to the heart of the God of the gaps. your "question" about plato and aristotle being theists would benefit from a brief read of their works. as to your second "question," since the god of the gaps is a core argument of philosophical naturalism, teleology very clearly goes to both. please, schroeder. the view is relevent, attributed, and accurate. please allow npov to go forward. Ungtss 00:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It may be better to formulate the argument as an interpretation of Plato rather than Plato arguing, from the grave as it were, against God of the gaps. I am simply stating that Plato's argument is not necessarily involving a "God" at all. No doubt that the "final cause" has been declared by Christians to be a "God", but that is an opinion of Christians (and perhaps other theists) and not a neutral fact. The modern concept of theism definitely claims Plato as a follower (through the adoption of the Catholic Church of scholasticism, some have argued), but this doesn't make Plato a theist in the sense of Billy Graham or Mohammed.
Nobody said plato had to be a theist in the sense of billy graham or mohammed. but he was a theist, and a creationist. those facts are beyond reasonable dispute. Ungtss 00:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ungtss, your insistence that this is a fact is completely unreasonable. Have you ever read a philosophy text on Plato written by a non-creationist who claimed that Plato was a creationist? If not, then you can be sure there is a level of opinion as to what exactly a "creationist" means. More than this, there is ongoing debate within the philosophical circles over whether Plato was "really" a theist in the sense that we talk about theists today. Do you absolutely refuse to admit that this is the case? Are you claiming there is no debate at all and that most people who study the subject hold your opinion? Joshuaschroeder 15:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You are once again using unreasonably narrow definitions to support your arguments. in normal, everyday parlance, a theist is one who believes in God, and creationist is one who believes the earth and life were created. Plato believed both. of course plato wasn't a theist as we think of theists today. by no means does that mean he wasn't a theist at all. He believed in God, and therefore, according to the definitions used by normal people, he was a theist. please, in discussion, use reasonable and rational definitions to avoid endless chatter about semantics. thank you. Ungtss 16:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
And you are wrong on your second account, Ungtss. "God of the gaps" isn't a "core" argument of philosophical naturalism. Note that such a statement appears nowhere in the article. In fact, such a claim is tantamount to claiming that philosophical naturalism defines itself only in an oppositional sense to theism. Of course, those who are naturalists would scoff at such a suggestion. God of the gaps is a device that may be used by philosophical naturalists in the context of arguing against theists, but it isn't a "core argument" by any means. Joshuaschroeder 00:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
strawman. i never said anything of the sort. i said that god of the gaps is a core argument of philosophical naturalism, in that it is one often made by proponents of philosophical naturalism. thus, proponents of teleology often find themselves composing arguments to challenge arguments of philosophical naturalism, including the god of the gaps. are you really going to filibuster this one, schroeder? Ungtss 00:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It isn't a core argument at all because a core argument is something that is fundamental to the argument. God of the gaps clearly isn't.
You aren't being reasonable at all here, Ungtss. I am pointing out some really basic problems with the edit you made. I haven't changed your edit in an attempt to get your opinion on what you added first, but frankly your defense of the inclusion doesn't seem very dispassionate nor above reproach. Joshuaschroeder 15:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
all irrelevent. When proponents of teleology makes an argument against the god of the gaps on that basis, there is no error in reporting that fact. thank you for leaving the edit to allow me to try and guess what would pacify you. in the future, please list your precise concerns with my edit, so i can try to find a mutually agreeable workaround. or better yet, try and identify your concerns and solve them in the text without threatening to delete it entirely. thank you. Ungtss 16:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Much better

Thanks, Ungtss, for changing your teleologist to Aquinas. A much better choice! Joshuaschroeder 15:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

thanks:). Ungtss 16:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More sources?

Anyone have some sources or origin information about the "God of the gaps" argument? It should be included in this article. --02:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Source info

The term goes back to Henry Drummond, who coined it in his Lowell Lectures on the Ascent of Man. In the 3rd edition (1894), drummond writes:

"There are reverent minds who ceaselessly scan the fields of Nature and the books of Science in search of gaps -- gaps which they will fill up with God. As if God lived in gaps? What view of Nature or of Truth is theirs whose interest in Science is not in what it can explain but in what it cannot, whose quest is ignorance not knowledge, whose daily dread is that the cloud may lift, and who, as darkness melts from this field or from that, begin to tremble for the place of His abode? What needs altering in such finely jealous souls is at once their view of Nature and of God. Nature is God's writing, and can only tell the truth; God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all. If by the accumulation of irresistible evidence we are driven -- may not one say permitted -- to accept Evolution as God's method in creation, it is a mistaken policy to glory in what it cannot account for. The reason why men grudge to Evolution each of its fresh [page 334:] claims to show how things have been made is the groundless fear that if we discover how they are made we minimize their divinity. When things are known, that is to say, we conceive them as natural, on Man's level; when they are unknown, we call them divine -- as if our ignorance of a thing were the stamp of its divinity. If God is only to be left to the gaps in our knowledge, where shall we be when these gaps are filled up? And if they are never to be filled up, is God only to be found in the dis-orders of the world? Those who yield to temptation to reserve a point here and there for special divine interposition are apt to forget that this virtually excludes God from the rest of the process. If God appears periodically, he disappears periodically. If he comes upon the scene at special crises he is absent from the scene in the intervals. Whether is all-God or occasional-God the nobler theory? Positively, the idea of an immanent God, which is the God of Evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker who is the God of the old theology. Negatively, the older view is not only the less worthy, but it is discredited by science. And as to facts, the daily miracle of a flower, the courses of the stars, the upholding and sustaining day by day of this great palpitating world, need a living Will as much as the creation of atoms at the first. We know growth is the method by which things are made in Nature, and we know no other method. We do not know that there are not other methods; but if there are we do not know them. Those cases which we do not know to be growths, we do not know to be anything else, and we may at least suspect them to be growths. Nor are they any the less miraculous [page 335:] because they appear to us as growths. A miracle is not something quick. The doings of these things may seem to us no miracle, nevertheless it is a miracle that they have been done. But, after all, the miracle of Evolution is not the process, but the product. Beside the wonder of the result, the problem of the process is a mere curiosity of Science."

(This added by Oliver P. (talk · contribs) on 15DEC05)

[edit] Lie to Children?

Why is lie-to-children under See Also? I fail to see the connection. Maybe there should be a one-sentence explanation of the connection? Tarheelcoxn 23:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Good point- it could be about how things like this are sometimes used to explain really complex things to kids, if you know what I mean

[edit] Occam's Razor

I don't understand the last sentence, which reads, "The god of the gaps argument also asserts that defaulting to a supernatural explanation brings up more questions than answers and requires many a priori assumptions, and therefore fails by Occam's Razor."

What's failing? The supernatural explanation? The sentence is awkward and doesn't flow with the rest of the paragraph. It might be as easy as changing to "supernatural explanations" if that's what is meant. Tarheelcoxn 23:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The sentence seems meaningless. User:Noisy | Talk 12:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Significant new edits in March, 2006

Hi Noisy: Thanks for your further edits and info in the article. I'd like to propose working out some language for this aricle that involves three sections rather than two. Offhand I suggest something like an intro defining rather than merely describing uses of the term-- it is definitely definable so let's please work out a definition of the term.

The God of the Gaps argument, the various forms of which are actually derivatives of the term/concept "God of the Gaps," should I believe be in a separate section. I propose showing what this argument is (ie, what form does it take, which I already attempted but you deleted that part completely), in addition to at least one example of a line of reasoning using the God of the Gaps (which is already there). One issue is that such a line of reasoning using the term/concept God of the Gaps, is different from what has come to be known today as a God of the Gaps argument (a logical fallacy similar to the argument from ignorance (see for instance the last section of Intelligent design

And it of course should be as NPOV as possible. I feel optimistic this can all be worked out and arrive at a yet better article to your satisfaction. Your thoughts?Kenosis 18:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Drummond's lecture seems a pretty comprehensive definition, so a few more quotes from the lecture should fit the bill. (He seems pretty good at getting his message over, so it seems redundant to try and better his words.) I have to admit that I come from a position of ignorance, because I had't really read the Drummond reference given above, before, and only researched in response to your edits. I think that any attempt to expand the definition beyond Drummond would risk straying into original research territory, and we don't really want to go there.
I think the intro is probably OK as it is (but the third para seems somewhat redundant). I think that there are two areas for expansion: one, the tracing of the original usage as identified by Drummond, as a criticism of fundamentalism; and the second tracing its co-option by evolutionists, and its parallels with the argument from ignorance, as you outline. Once those two paths are traced, then a reappraisal of the intro may be more obvious.
Whichever way you proceed, I would caution that you provide citations (which you haven't yet), such as I have done with the Drummond reference. As I said, it's not really my area, so I'll just be your conscience, encouraging you to maintain NPOV, which is always going to be difficult with this phrase.
One final thing - please use the 'show preview' button. Noisy | Talk 00:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi: Fair enough, though I will need to get back to this later on. I'm sure we can parse out the difference between the central concept and the "god of the gaps argument" as it is increasingly seen today, so as to avoid unnecessary confusion between the two. I'm not sure I want to get fall into the fundamentalist/evolutionist debate one bit though, if I can avoid it. Take care for nowKenosis 00:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Noisy: I cleaned up the language in the intro just a bit, but without changing the existing content. I also added a third section with some description of the dominant modern usage of "God of the Gaps argument," with a couple of links.

I need some more time to find cites you requested to back up any proposals to revise the introductory paragraph to include a definition of some kind. Look forward to working it through with you and any other interested editors.Kenosis 16:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (Diety) God of the Gaps

the more I thought about it, the more it made sense to replace the reference to "god" with diety. The whole point of this page is an explanation of a coined phrase. Granted the phrase was reference to god, but the idea from which the phrase was derived was about religion in general, hence the objective use of deity. I understand the wording of the phrase, but the reference is to religion in general, not just christianity. Please give me insight on this, I feel I should change it. Somerset219 04:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Somerset, thanks for the note on my page. Yes, in that last sentence of the first paragraph, I think "... so the role of God (or other diety or supernatural influence) is therefore confined to the 'gaps' in scientific explanations of nature." would work fine. It's your honors if you wish. .... Kenosis 05:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The origin of the phrase seems to be explicitly Christian, and where it is now used in linkage with challenges to orthodox evolutionary theories the primary combatants are Christians. The only reason that attempts are made to widen the catchment area of those challenging evolution to include other religions are purely to try and misdirect. And it seems it's working ... Noisy | Talk 08:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection either way. Same principle even if there are other, shall we say, spiritual delegates? involved. If I were to have a bit of a preference, I'd leave it as is.
As Noisy points out, the roots of the phrase God of the Gaps are Christian. To which I might add, it applies to all theistic positions that cannot see their way clear to an immanent God, which in turn applies to all Abrahamic traditions. Pantheistically based religions don't have this problem. Deists don't have this problem. Panentheists don't have this problem. Only theists do, and that equates to the use of the word "God" however you translate it. Thanks for the challenge to the reasoning here and for the need to think about it a bit more. .. Kenosis 08:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I do agree with the concept that it was Christian, however that argument is misguided. Being that christianity is the dominate religion, I'm sure no one is going to criticize any other religion without a broad audience. In other words Christianity was criticized because of its popular following, not necessarily because of Jesus, or anything else significant to Christianity. Somerset219 00:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theistic position

The article calls the following a common theistic position:

anything that can be explained by human knowledge is not in the domain of God

That hardly sounds commonly theistic to me. Perhaps deistic, but not theistic. Srnec 04:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually you are correct Srnec, and thanks for noticing. The God of the gaps is more acurately characterized with the use of a phrase such as "anything that is explained about the natural world..." ... Kenosis 05:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] questions of science?

explanations for many aspects of how the universe began, for the origin of life (abiogenesis), and for how certain species evolved stepwise rather than in continuous random fashion (morphogenesis), remain outstanding questions for which a scientific consensus has yet to form. The theistic position typically retains these within the domain of God.

not only do i feel this is poorly worded but i also think its misleading and isn't the point of the article. The questions of abiogenesis and morphogensis are being addressed by the scientific community. the statement was rather in reguards to questions science cannot address, ie; Why the universe began or the origin of man. The point of this statement is to correlate the scientifically unknowable to a deity, as to what god of the gaps does. Somerset219 01:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, and abiogenesis is still squarely within the domain of theism thus far, while morphogenesis is a toss-up depending on which cleric you talk to. At present I have no great objection to your version as long as the article continues to make the basic point about what the "God of the gaps" is. So far, it's reasonably on track. Nonetheless, the question of why the universe exists is, in my opinion, a ridiculous one -- is it intended to refer to the anthropic principle? ... Kenosis 02:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Does not the "theistic position" retain all in the domain of God? If he is the ultimate cause, creator, and sustainer of all and if he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, then there is nothing outside his domain. This type of language seems to me to obscure the theistic position. What theists would say this: "somethings remain in the domain of God, others no longer"? Srnec 00:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your logic Srnec, however the god of the gaps argument/ theistic position is based on an answer to a question. Like; the understanding of something is this way because my deity said so, which would not allow room for argument, or really any understanding. however your logic pertains to: since god is perfect, even though we may or may not understand, it is in his realm, which I agree on... the logic at least. However god of the gaps is based on questions of understanding, not the belief of theists. hope that makes some sense. Somerset219 02:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree with you Kenosis, and Theism also refers to the anthropic principle, but I'm not sure what you mean about abiogenesis. From what i understood from the article it sounded scientific to me, I suppose the only way it could be construed as theistic is if you supplemented life with spirirt or soul. Or perhaps I'm a bit off base, because now that I think of it, wasn't protein created from "nothing" by some scientist? maybe i need to do some homework. At any rate, just out of curiosity, what do you mean by theistic? Somerset219 02:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Near-Complete Obscuration

I am writing an article on God of the Gaps, and hence have some familiarity with the term's origins and its common use. I am disturbed by what I read in this article, and in the discussion, which indicate that a few contributors truly understand the term, while a good many more, with no understanding of the term, are bullying the others into wording that is at least confusing and at worst manipulative.

The term, "God of the Gaps" was invented by a Christian (Drummond) to describe an erroroneous approach to Christian apologetics. Subsequent development of the term, as noted in the article, has been exclusively by Christians (Bonhoeffer, Coulson, Bube). There can be no argument that this is a technical term used by Christians, and the article should reflect that. There should be no discussion about whether Christian theologies are correct, only about what the term means and how it was invented.

The definition in [Theopedia] is correct, although some of the "point of view" will have to be cleaned up for Wikipedia. By contrast, the whole first paragraph here in Wikipedia is muddled and obscures the topic. I would try to fix it, but I can see from the history that everyone who tried to do so got mugged. One more example of how Wikipedia is fast losing its credibility. Mrdavenport 22:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other sense

Am I right in thinking there is another slightly different sense of 'God of the gaps', namely a god who acts in the world via indeterminism - a theist can agree that the world follows the laws of physics but still allow (somewhat limited) intervention by god if he fiddles with e.g. random quantum interactions to bring about particular macroscopic results. If so, the article should say something about this. Ben Finn 16:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

A Criticism section is needed to allow balance (NPOV) to this article. The God of the Gaps argument relegates God to the leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge increases, the Dominion of God decreases. Judeo-christian theology disagrees: God is above nature and science. The Creator created all of the universe and the scientific and natural laws which people are discovering. This view holds that science studies God's gravity, God's plate techtonics, God's relativity, God's chemistry,etc. Theistic evolutionists hold that people are a product of God's evolution. (appropriate citations are available) Pkgx (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)