In a riposte to this post, we note here how "theists" supposedly argue. According to this post (which is an excerpt from his forthcoming book),
Regardless of the course taken by naturalists, most sophisticated Christian theists refrain from dependence on a god-of-the-gaps form of reasoning. Rather, Christian scholars tend to appeal to God as an inference to the best explanation. This form of logical reasoning resembles the way detectives, lawyers, historians, and scientists reason. For example, scientists sometimes postulate ideas that are unobservable in order to explain the data that is observed (consider for example dark matter and dark energy). This approach posits the biblical God as the best explanation for all the significant realities in life.
Besides suffering from the fallacy of induction, and affirming the consequence, can anyone imagine the Bible stating:
"I am the best explanation and approximation of the way, the truth and the life" - Jesus
"In the beginning the best explanation is there was the Word..."
The Scriptures do not endorse this type of illogical nonsense, for good reason. Samples has not managed to escape the charge of "god-of the gaps" argumentation, for the primary method is still the same. God and His Word is not taken as the foundation, but rather autonomous reason is taken as the foundation for Samples' reasoning.
Inference to the best explanation works in historical and judicial fields because these fields are not about proving true truth, but rather constructing a plausible case. That is why supposed established history can be questioned if new discoveries are made, and legal cases re-opened if new evidences are found. To drag the Christian faith down to that level is to reduce it to a mere hypothesis, and a hypothesis no matter how solid is still a hypothesis which may be wrong.
The "god of the gaps" argument begins with autonomous reason, thus whatever is not open to reason or the senses (empiricism) or whatever combination of the two, is disregarded a priori. In such a rationalistic mentality, any mention of "god" is placed within the rationalistic framework, and therefore "god" is seen either as a crutch to inhibit further understanding (thus "of the gaps"), or as the author behind everything, which is seen by atheists as a crutch still. After all, having conceded the foundation of autonomous reason, why stop there?
Biblically minded Christians therefore do not reason like "theists." We start with God and His Word, not Man and his mind(s). We do not reason to God, but reason from God.
Credo ut intelligam