Thanks Colin, and thanks for the clarification. One problem I had with concluding that Pallaghy's position was god of the gaps is that his main point, in my understanding, was that the current state of science pointed to the likelihood of a base reality, a deeper layer of reality. He noted that Matthew concluded this was evidence for God, but it seemed that Pallaghy recognized that argument without necessarily buying it. The use of god of the gaps response it seems unnecessarily hinders deeper discussion.