On an Amazon.com discussion, Intelligent Design was (once again) accused of the "god of the gaps" approach. To this, I responded thus:
Many have responded to this old canard, such as Bill Dembski in The Design Revolution and myself in my forthcoming book, Christian Apologetics. "God of the gaps" just presupposes that naturalism can explain everything; if it faces an explanatory problem, it refuses to consider a non-natural explanation involving original, intelligent causation. That is dismissed as "god of the gaps." It is an air-tight strategy that begs the question in favor of naturalism. Yes, some theistic explanations have failed, but not all. Moreover, many naturalistic explanations have and continue to fail. It cannot account for irreducible complexity or objective moral value, and so on. See JP Moreland, The Recalcitrant Imago Dei.