Thanks for your input on this topic. It provides a good occasion for
clarifying my ideas.
LJ: "You seem to frequently react to ID people with the rhetorical
reference to "gaps", with the reminiscences of bad predictions made,
and the dishonor to God when these assuredly proclaimed
predictions, made in God's name, were later found to be instances of
normal natural science."
HVT: My reference to "gaps" is meant to be far more than a piece of
rhetorical strategy. When I speak of "gaps" I am specifically referring to
the concept of "missing formational capabilities" that would make either
the first assembly of a living form or unbroken genealogical continuity
among all of the Creation's life forms impossible. By its repeated
declarations that "natural processes" are not able to account for the
assembly of particular species or biotic subsystems, the ID position
demands the presence of gaps of just this sort. I think that this needs to
be more candidly recognized. As I have said before, what is presented to
the public as a theory about "intelligent design" seem actually to be
primarily a theory about the need for the "extranatural assembly" of a
short list of particular species or biotic subsystems.
LJ: "But you are overdoing that theme, and using it to clobber
anyone who thinks that there are evidences that material structures
exist (particularly biological) whose information content belies their
probabilistic production by random naturalistic processes. It seems
that your "Functional Integrity" in practice means what we would call
"natural process", with the implied support of Theistic Evolution. I
would guess that all Christians would gladly attribute "natural
process" laws to God's creation and sustenance.
HVT: What I have called the "functional integrity of the Creation" refers
to my belief that the Creation has been fully gifted by the Creator--no
gaps in its formational economy--so that it is able to accomplish the
formation of life forms as intended by the Creator. What you here call
either "natural" or "naturalistic" processes I would strongly prefer to
call "creaturely processes." From the Christian perspective, the abilities
to carry out these processes are part of the 'being' that has been given to
creatures (members of the Creation) by the Creator. I choose not to use the
misleading term "naturalistic" in this context. Much of the ID literature
carries the implication that to call something a "naturalistic process" is
to accept the claim (by the preachers of Naturalism) that it eliminates the
need for a Creator. One thing I have been trying to say is that the more
gifted the formational economy of the Creation is, the MORE evident is its
need for unfathomable divine creativity (in thoughtfully conceptualizing
that menu of formational capabilities) and unlimited generosity (in giving
the Creation such richness of being).
I'm sorry to hear that it looks to you that I'm overdoing that theme, but I
think it needs to be said until more people get the point. Sometime
repetition is necessary.
Respectfully,
Howard J. Van Till