<<I think Howard's point is that the distinctions he made in his initial =
post are legitimate -regardless- of one's assumptions on the issues you =
brought up, and so he does -not-, in offering this discussion framework, =
build in the assumption(s) you suggested.>>
Howard contends that ID means "one is committed to" the two theological
perspectives he lays out. I take issue with his formulation of those two
perspectives. His first, it seems to me, implies some sort of negativity to a
God who "withholds" certain creative capabilities to nature. I don't see that
negativity, which has been assumed, but not explained. Perhaps the line that
most implies that negativity is this one:
HVT << God is presumed to have forced some members of the Creation to do
something different from, or beyond, what the formational powers given to them
at the outset could have allowed them to do. >>
"Forced"....not "allowed"...these are negative terms in context. I'd like to
know why we must assume "withholding" is bad, especially in light of God's
"withholding" in salvation history.
The second perspective hints that the AIM of apologetics from the ID side is
to search for gaps to explain. I don't think that's the aim. I think the aim
is to explain what IS, but from an ID position.
Howard's original *definitional* distinctions are, however, correct in my
view:
<<(1) To be "intelligently designed" means to be the outcome of thoughtful
conceptualization (which, or course, implies purpose). The focus of attention
here is on the action of mind (or, more appropriately, of Mind).
(2) To be "intelligently designed" means to have been assembled in time by
extra-natural means. The focus of attention here is on the action of "hands,"
or the divine equivalent thereof. >>
He contends that #2 forces commitment to the positions (a) and (b) he
describes. It's the definition of those positions (a) and (b) I take issue
with.
Perhaps I should try to re-formulate those positions in a positive way. If one
is a #2 IDer, then two positions theolgoical DO emerge:
(a) God is able to demonstrate, and in fact has demonstrated, his creative
power in time by supernatural acts in course of history. The appearance of
Christ on Earth in time is one of these. The special creation of man is
another. These do not show an inefficient God, but a God whose "time schedule"
is his own. He is under no obligation to justify this to us (see Job).
(b) Christian apologists can understand what science has discerned vis-a-vis
gaps in the formational history of life. It is free to reject the idea that
naturalism will ultimately explain these gaps, because it has no a priori
commitment to the explanatory supremacy of naturalism. Indeed, it rejects such
an assumption. Thus, the gaps are apparent to all, but the complexity of life
can be seen as consistent with design by an intelligent agent.
Put that way, I have no problem agreeing with Howard that #2 ID commits one to
these positions.
Jim