Read a blog by a pastor today. he talked about a “naturalism of the gaps”, trying to turn the ‘god of the gaps” theory around. He claims that atheists start with the supposition that there is no god, and theorize how existence came into being without him. I could not understand his logic here. Maybe I’m missing something. Maybe I haven’t really understood the crux of his argument, something that will make me go, “Oh, that!” I don’t know. The ‘god of the gaps’ is a derisive name given by atheists to the theists’ attempts to insert god into any section/sub-section/article of science in whichever field that scientists haven’t been able to explain yet. The assertion and automatic assumption being that if humans cannot understand it, it must be from god. Of course, this is a steadily dwindling field with science making inroads into so many mysteries and answering so many questions that we thought unanswerable. Theists are forced to find further ‘gaps’ in our understanding of the natural universe (hence the name) and more often than not, they find them in arcane aspects of science, fields that the common man they want to convince wouldn’t know much about. But that’s another matter. How does this nomenclature then, fit into our explanation of the universe being formed without god? If scientists have come up with a working model for creation that makes sense without having to turn to god, how is that a theory of gaps? If anything, it’s the theory of non-gaps, a theory of continuity. The day we can finally flesh out the entire picture, there will be no gap left. Granted that the Big Bang and antecedent events are part theory. But the thing is, whatever we seem to be able to predict from this theory holds true. Whatever evidence we have gathered from Cosmic Background Radiation, the LHC and numerous other experiments and observations fill out the theory and prove it true. Then how is it a ‘gap theory’? The reverend (do you call a pastor that? Or is it for those higher in the hierarchy?) then bemoans that no one preaching ID (Intelligent Design) gets into prestigious colleges as teaching faculty, implying they should. If whatever they propose to teach, even if it flies in the face of all scientific evidence is valid and deserves to be taught, then someone wanting to teach about the “true” life of Hercules as a history lesson deserves equal representation as someone teaching the history of the Tudors. ID doesn’t get into peer reviewed journals because of the vast conspiracy against it (I’m sure there is, father). He calls the whole thing a smokescreen, without bothering to explain how it is so. In the end he says it’s a fascinating fact that 150 years after the publishing of ‘The Origin of Species’, only 39% of Americans believe in evolution. Finally, one point on which I can agree with the good reverend! It is indeed an astounding fact, though for very different reasons than the pastor thinks.