Edited sentence: "Gaps" in science should be presumed to have naturalistic explanations only when theistic causes are excluded a priori.Another issue surrounded creation science is the God of the gaps argument.Creation scientists see the issue differently.For if it is believed that God may act in the universe, then "gaps" in science may be filled with either naturalistic or theistic explanations, and neither is inherently more likely when the true answer is unknown.If one starts with the premises of theistic realism, therefore, the "gaps" in science may be filled with either naturalistic or theistic explanations, but where naturalistic explanations are consistently shown to be unreasonable or impossible, it is reasonable to infer divine causes.The God of the gaps argument provides that it is unreasonable to believe that natural phenomena are explained by divine action, because historically, science has continually explained phenomena that were previously seen as divine in origin.Theistic realism, on the other hand, allows for the possibility of divine action in the universe as well as naturalistic causation.They typically argue that the god of the gaps argument rests on the premise of philosophical naturalism that God does not act in the universe.Thus, creation science is seen as placing God in the "gaps" of science, when, in fact, further research into science should be placed in those gaps.Thus, the god of the gaps argument depends on philosophical naturalism for its meaning