As I see it, "Atheism in the Gaps" occurs when an atheist does not need to prove his position is more plausible; but instead, he just needs to point out the holes in the theist's position, i.e. prove it is not iron-clad – as if anything is – and then fill in the gaps with an atheistic belief.

Atheists, for example, point to supposed "design-flaws" in the human body, like that we choke too easily. To them, this lack of perfection creates a gap in the God model proposed by theists. They then proceed to fill this hole with atheism, saying these flaws prove there is no omniscient and perfect God that designed us all. 

But this conclusion is quite arrogant, let alone wrong.

They are in essence claiming to know what the grand purpose of humanity is. Only then can they legitimately claim that the design which supposes to achieve that purpose is in some way flawed. For instance, a hammer does not have a “design flaw” because it can’t beat eggs, as its purpose is to – what’s the technical term? Oh yeah! – bang things hard.

So how do they know our purpose? Indeed, why do they assume it is to live forever so that things like easily choking frustrates it? Who told them, God? What's more, how do they then proceed to, with a straight face, fill this purpose/design gap with an atheistic belief? This is a completely irrational step that assumes far too much.

In fact, it is far more rational to fill this "gap" with God, at least the Biblical view of Him. According to this view, the human body must be frail.  Only a frail and feeble creature would have the motivation to guard – or for that matter, to live – life as the fleeting treasure of untold value that it is. If we lived forever, how would life be similarly valuable? It is in fact the urgency and ease of death that gives life value.

So we see that unless atheists can legitimately posit an objective purpose to humanity, this argument, much like most atheist arguments, can be discarded out of hand. What's unmistakably clear is that atheists have no rational basis to fill this gap with atheism. But fill they do. 

These are all, of course, rhetorical questions. Of course it is odd, and in many ways, counter-intuitive. So why do liberal organizations trying to advocate policy choices in the oligarchy courts—policy choices they know they would never get passed at the ballot box using the democratic process—choose to make their arguments rooted in the constitution? Shouldn’t the overt sentiments of contradiction and inconsistency persuade them to seek a different basis for their arguments?

On the surface, there are two answers to this question—one being more ominous than the other. The first, less devious, answer is that the judges imposing these liberal policy choices must at least claim to be engaging in their duty to safeguard and protect the rule of law rooted in the constitution. Thus, they must, at a minimum, pay lip-service to a document from which, in actuality, they rarely seek guidance. They only truly call on the constitution if it happens to support their presupposed policy-choice leanings—and that occurs less often than Democrats passing on a new expansion of government.

Nevertheless, the second, and more frank, answer is that even liberals see the need to seek support from some objective source of morality and law. Only then can they impose their policy choices on the masses with at least a small degree of intellectual honesty. Without this objectivity, they are merely compelling society to adhere to their own personal, and thus subjective, preference on various policies and issues. This is why they elect to label any policy choice they disagree with "unconstitutional" or "illegal"; they are tripping on their own moral relativism and the subjective, and thus illegitimizing, aura it promotes.

So since they argue that God may not even enter the mind of a policymaker, let alone guide him in his policy making decisions, the constitution is all they have left. It is the last avenue of appeal for some notions of right or wrong that transcend their personal opinion and preference. Thus, they are forced to hijack the constitution so that can claim to have some objective, and thus legitimate, authority over the society on which they seek to impose their policy choices.

This is clearly illustrated by the liberal attack on traditional notions of marriage. They make the odd claim that the Equal Protection clause demands, despite the obvious differences, that we legally encourage homosexual relationships in the same way we do so for heterosexual relationships—with things like tax breaks and expedited probate. Yet, the Equal Protection clause was only created for the purpose of granting equal rights to blacks based on their newfound freedom from slavery. The drafters did not even mean to promote equality among the sexes with this clause, let alone between different types of sexual conduct. But this undeniable fact does not deter liberals from invoking the constitution, because without it, they lack even a pretense to an objective, and thus legitimate, basis for their policy impositions.

But really, who can blame them? Saying something is "unconstitutional" sure does sound more persuasive than saying "I feel in my heart, and tummy…that is a bad rule."