From :PSCF 40 (June 1998): 128

Those present at the Tuesday evening session of this year's annual meeting will recall Geisler's strong denial of Van Till's accusation that Origin Science argued for a God-of-the-gaps. Geisler is right, provided we restrict matters to "operation science" (Norman L. Geisler and J. Kerby Anderson, Origin Science.- A Proposal for the Creation-Evolution Controversy. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1987, pp. 17, 28, 65f, II 3f). But the area of "origin science" is different. There the argument (I change the language) runs that, since we cannot explain the ylem which underlies the Big Bang, its source must be God (Ibid., pp. 133-136; cf., pp. 29, 107, 109, 118, 123). Since we cannot explain the origin of life, it must be ascribed to God (Ibid., pp. 137-147). Since we cannot explain the apparently sudden appearance of diverse phyla, they must spring from God's activity (Ibid., pp. 147-156). This is clearly a God-of-the-"originscience"-gaps. It could hardly be more explicit. Where it counts, Van Till is right.

Any God-of-the-gaps view is deistic rather than theistic. Geisler and Anderson properly, overtly, reject the deistic view. But improperly, tacitly, they make it the basis of "origin science." So they must be classified as crypto-deists denying deism. Such is the end of trying to defend the indefensible-self-contradiction and nonsense.