"At any rate, given that you recognize the prior action of
a creative mind wholeheartedly (I don't doubt you on this at all),
isn't it possible that one particular (not the only) way that the
creative mind could have expressed His creativity was by assembling
bioform X or biosystem Y for the first time by exercising His form-imposing
action as a dextrous, craftsman-type agent? Why limit the action of this
omnipotent creator to one way or another?"
My response: I do not intend to limit the omnipotent Creator in any way,
of course. (Besides, I don't think I could do that even if I tried) Neither
do I wish to argue that the Creator could not have acted like a
form-imposing, dexterous, craftsman-type agent if that were consistent with
his character and will.
At the same time, I might ask proponents of any version of episodic
(special) creationism if they think it impossible for God to have given
being to a Creation gifted with a robust formational economy, that is,
gifted with all of the creaturely capabilities that would be required for
the remarkable phenomenon of macroevolution to be possible. Would that
suggest a Creator of any less creativity, generosity, or power?
My point continues to be that if form-imposing, craftsman-type action is
the principal (or only) kind of divine action that the vocal proponents of
ID count as the kind of creative action that "makes a difference" (a
favorite expression of Phil Johnson) in the Creation's formational history,
then they should say so clearly and candidly so that everyone who sees the
term ID in their literature will actually know what concept is being
promoted.
Howard Van Till