How do creationists address the similarity between Irreducible Complexity and God Of The Gaps? &quot;God Of The Gaps&quot; refers to using holes in our understanding of the universe as an argument for God. It is rejected by modern creationists, as it is by Christians generally.

However, the only people who invoke a ‘god of the gaps’ argument are evolutionists knocking down creationist straw men; creationists actually appeal to what we do know about chemistry, biology and information theory. (Lael Weinberger - Harmony and discord)

Creationists do however support the Irreducible Complexity argument, which says that there are systems which require multiple components to work together for the system to have any productive function at all. So for example, they have argued that the eye is irreducibly complex, and cannot have evolved.
But this seems to me to be very similar to a God Of The Gaps argument. &quot;If a system has 20 components, we might be able to remove 10 of them and have it still function, but we don't know how it could function with only 9. Therefore God.&quot;
Isn't this a kind of God Of The Gaps argument? How have creationists addressed the similarity between these arguments?

The basic concept presented by Dr Behe is that of ‘irreducible complexity’. A system that is irreducibly complex is one in which precise components work jointly to perform the basic function of the system. It also means that if any part of that system were to be absent or removed, the system would cease to function. Therefore, any step to simplify an irreducibly complex system would result in a non-functional system. This presents an insurmountable problem for the Darwinist. If one alleges that all systems evolved by gradual addition to previously functioning systems, how does one explain a complex system that would not perform its basic function if it were missing even a single component? (Robert T. Mitchell - Darwin's Black Box)
The traditional conception of step-by-step major evolutionary change has the supposed advantage of reasonable probability for each step while suffering from the disadvantage of being incapable of producing the necessarily simultaneous changes (hence irreducible complexity). ... It almost seems as though evolutionists are invoking these hopeful mini monster mechanisms as an act of desperation. In any case, the giant chasm that remains between the observed tiny changes, on the one hand, and the speculated large-scale evolutionary outcomes, on the other, itself attests to the validity and force of the argument of irreducible complexity. (John Woodmorappe - Irreducible complexity: some candid admissions by evolutionists)
Fair question. But your construction of the IC argument doesn't quite capture its essence. IC doesn't say "We don't know how it would work with only 9, therefore God." Rather, it says, "This complex system is fundamentally non-functional without multiple interdependent parts, therefore all these parts had to emerge simultaneously, therefore the mechanism of gradual evolution cannot explain its emergence."

The canonical example of an IC system is the snap-type mousetrap. The system consists of a baseplate, a swinging hammer bar, a spring, and a trigger, all four of which must be working in tandem for the device to be considered operational. The IC adherent does not say "We don't know how to make a simpler mousetrap, therefore its a miracle." The argument is much more precise. They say, "This particular model of a mousetrap could never be functional with fewer parts. The manufacturer could not sell a discount version of this device with only 2 of the parts and call it a 'simplified mousetrap'. It's not a mousetrap if it is incapable of trapping mice."

So, if there are biological systems with comparable complexity, IC argues that gradual evolution is an insufficient theory to explain them. So, yes, these systems represent "gaps" that must be explained. Whether you put God in those gap is up to you. But naturalistic darwinian evolution -- by definition -- can never fill those gaps.