God of the gaps
The god of the gaps argument is one used to contrast faith-based explanations for nature with those derived from science.
The term is used in a pejorative sense by those wishing to deride perceived religious retreat in the face of increasingly comprehensive scientific explanations of natural phenomena. The argument starts with the position that early religious descriptions of objects and events (e.g. sun, moon and stars; thunder and lightning) placed these in the realm of things created or controlled by a god or gods. As the scientific method came up with explanations for observations in the realms of astronomy, meteorology, geology, cosmology and biology, the 'need' for a god to explain phenomena was — and is being — reduced, and occupies smaller and smaller 'gaps' in knowledge.
Creationists see the "god of the gaps" argument in a different light. 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. They argue that if the God of the Gaps were getting smaller with scientific advances, one could expect Him to ultimately disappear. On the contrary, however, every step of science has made the God of the Gaps bigger, making belief in design more reasonable, and belief in naturalism less reasonable. They argue that while Creationism requires the assumption of a single enormously powerful creator, 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, creationism is more reasonable than naturalism.
Theories for the origin of life and the universe remain outstanding problems for which a scientific consensus has yet to form. The theistic position retains these within the domain of God.