A Response to A Conglomoration of Posts and General Concepts

After reading around some of the various posts from last week and this week, I wanted to just offer some thoughts I was having about a topic that is frequently discussed.  The tendency for philosophers to insert a "God" to fill gaps in arguments occurs quite often.  I wonder just how many philosophers insert a deity into their theories?  How does this affect the credence of the arguments, when from the perspective of an atheist or of another religious denomination? The theory of human nature I find most valid is Darwin's, due to foundations in science and fact.  I will (subconsciously) dismiss a theory because God is given credit. How can a theory be adhered to if components of the theory attribute great explanations to an idea that cannot be proven? For example, maybe a poor one, but if I was eating a salad and enjoying all the delicious components, really understanding why it was so appealing to me and then I notice throughout the salad little vile squiggly worms.  The addition of the off-putting ingredient would cause me to reject the salad as a whole entity.  I may still have sentiment for the lettuce and vegetables but my sentiment for eating the contents of the bowl are now gone.  This is the way I feel about theories that incorporate religious figures.  Like a delicious salad, appetizing and appealing until you notice the worms.