What is the “god of the gaps” fallacy that theists are thought to be guilty of?

“God of the gaps” is a theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God’s existence. (Wikipedia)

Stephen Meyer refutes the idea that God was invented to fill in the gaps of ignorance but rather God was introduced as a cause because we have independent sources to substantiate this reasoning.

A god of the gaps argument is an argument that has a formal logical structure that in logic is known as an argument from ignorance. It’s an informal fallacy. Arguments of ignorance have the following form: If I say cause A is not sufficient to produce effect X and then I say cause B must have produced X but I have no independent evidence that cause B can produce X, then I’ve committed of a fallacy of arguing from ignorance. Because just because A isn’t sufficient to produce the effect in question, doesn’t mean that some other cause did it. You have to have independent evidence that other causes capable of doing it. That then becomes a god of the gaps argument when you say well various natural processes aren’t sufficient to produce the origin of the first life, for the origin of the first animals in the history of life and then if I were to say “therefore God did it”, that would be a god of the gaps argument. It would be an argument from ignorance.

But that’s not how we’re arguing when we make a case for intelligent design because we’re adding an additional premise. We’re saying that various kinds of natural processes are not sufficient to produce the origin of new functional information. And we’re specifically dialed into the presence of the digital code that’s stored in the DNA molecule that performs important biological functions. It’s information in a very specific technical sense so we say we show that various natural processes are insufficient to produce large infusions of information we see arising the history of life that are necessary to build new forms of life. But then we point out from observation of the world around us that we do know of a cause, it doesn’t produce information. We have independent evidence that intelligent agency, that mind, that creative intelligence can generate information. You and I are doing it right now as we’re talking, trading notes, trading information. Information is in our experience a mind product. We have independent experience that minds produced information. And so when we infer an intelligent agent as having acted in the past based on the presence of digital code stored in the macro molecules of life, we’re not arguing from ignorance we’re arguing from our knowledge of cause and effect and specifically what we know minds can do, namely produce information that merely undirected material processes can’t.