A popular argument against the existence of God used by atheistic, materialistic evolutionists is called “the God of the gaps”. This alleges that when Christians face a difficulty in science they just fill in the gap in their knowledge with God. Thus, they supposedly are not scientific, just pseudoscientific. However, the truth is really just the opposite. It is the atheists that are being pseudoscientific and hypocritical and are guilty of filling the gaps with false ideas. While the Bible is scientifically accurate, it is not a science textbook. It does not "fill in" every gap in knowledge. That would make it impossibly long. Christians know they don't know everything, and that the Bible does not give every detail of everything. The question is, "Which idea best explains the gaps?"
First, we must acknowledge that science itself is not the end-all of knowledge. It is merely a method of examining things in the material world and has its limits. There are many things that scientists don’t know, and they have been wrong about many things in the past. What they accuse Christians of they are often guilty of themselves. They have a problem with evolution of the gaps. When they are confronted with flaws in their ideas and the limits of their knowledge, they sometimes fill in the gaps with hypotheses. For example, when they are confronted with the fact that comets cannot be millions of years old because they will run out of material after far less than even one million years, they fill in the gap with the idea of an Oort cloud where new comets are formed. The Oort cloud is strictly a fantasy. It has never been observed directly or indirectly. There is absolutely no evidence such a thing exists. The law of biogenesis states that life can only come from other life. When asked how life came from non-life, they fill in the gap with fantastic tales of lighting striking ammonia or even aliens. They cite the Miller-Urey experiments of 1953 as an explanation of how non-life can produce life. What they fail to tell us is that the experiment was a failure. It did not produce a living thing. They used the wrong gases. Toxins which would kill any potential life were produced. Less than half the needed amino acids were produced. They left oxygen out of the experiment.
Atheistic evolutionists try to discredit young earth creationists and faith in God in general by saying that it is a blind faith. Anyone who does an honest reading of the Bible can see that it does not teach blind faith. This is illustrated by the most important doctrine in the Bible - the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Even many atheists acknowledge that Jesus existed and even that He died. The issue arises with His resurrection. Paul addresses this in 1Corinthians 15. He starts by saying that the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. He then goes on to recount 5 of the 12 times that Jesus appeared after He rose that we have accounts of in the Bible. He mentions how the Lord appeared to Him also in Acts 9. Luke states that the Lord substantiated His resurrection by many infallible proofs (Acts 1:3). John said Jesus did many more miracles than could be recorded in the Bible (Jn 20:30-31). Also, Jesus fulfilled many highly specific prophecies about His death, burial, and resurrection which were written hundreds of years before they happened. Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 are just two examples. Jesus did not require blind faith.
However, evolution does require blind faith. This can be seen in the wording they use themselves to describe what they believe. All you have to do is pay attention to what they are saying or writing and notice how many times they use words like if, maybe, possibly, it could be, probably, we think, or one that shows it so clearly - scientists believe. Evolution requires belief in many things that defy scientific laws.
Evolutionists say that random, unguided mutations led to new species. However, mutations are always a loss of genetic information, not an increase. When asked where the new genetic information came from, they fill in the gap with such “science” as crystals and aliens. They fill in the same gap when asked how information in general, which always comes from an intelligent source, came from. When asked where energy and matter came from, they have no answer. They cannot even explain what energy is. When asked where all the transitional fossils are, they try to fill in the gap with creatures like the archaeoraptor, It was not a reptile but a fully functional bird. The first example given was a fraud. There are only 7 examples of it. The ostrich and hoatzin have similar traits, and supposedly earlier birds already existed.
Since most atheistic evolutionists are materialists, they cannot explain consciousness. Morals and laws are also immaterial and contradict their worldview of randomness and lawlessness. They also have no basis for them. They criticize Christians for believing that God is eternal and thus not created, and therefore the first cause. Yet they fill in the gap with the idea that nothing created everything and suppose that is more scientific and logical. They cannot explain irreducible complexity. This says that you cannot reverse engineer all of the complex systems even in a single cell, let alone all of the interacting systems in the human body, such organs as the eye, and nature back to something simple enough to be the origin of all life.
The question of who created God is a non-sequitir because they are imagining a god that the Bible does not describe. Created gods are by definition idols and not the true God the scriptures describe. So, it’s not the Christians trying to fill in gaps with a false superstition. It is actually the atheists.