it makes no difference. "God of the gaps", or "intelligent designer of the gaps".
But as I pointed out, I'm not making a "gap" argument at all. You're too fixed on the single idea that I must be, and so you're having trouble seeing that Theists don't need to -- and wouldn't be rational to -- insist that God must be the
direct cause of natural phenomena.
A Lawgiver God is not the direct cause of what happens under the laws he establishes. He's only
indirectly involved in the causal explanation of particular phenomena, as the Originator of the system in which these events take place; and He may or may not choose to be involved in their particular workings on particular occasions, and then by way of extraordinary circumstances. Beyond that, His role is as sustainer of the system-at-large, but not micromanager of every phenomenon.
Of course He *can* directly intervene if He wishes; but if He does, it's by way of the miraculous, not of routine physical laws. Normally you can expect the physical laws to operate predictably -- a fact that makes regular science itself possible. Normally, Red Seas don't divide. Normally, dead men don't rise. And when such things happen, it would be a miracle, not a natural happenstance.
You see, the old "God-of-the-Gaps" critique says that our conception of God must shrink as the gaps in our explanation of natural phenomena are closed scientifically. But God is not in the gaps. So when we close the gaps, we're not explaining any part of Him away.
Clearer?
It is no doubt the case that evolution is inadequate in many areas. I agree it cannot explain the eye at this stage. The most rational and logical explanation may well be design. So what?
So what? Wow. That's a big admission relative to your argument. Science aims at the best explanation. If the best explanation is, at the moment, design, then the corollary of that is that
it's also the best scientific explanation. (Again, though, you've got to get your thinking out of the gaps to realize this.)
It is still a "Science cannot explain evolution so it must be the work of an intelligent designer" argument. It is a fallacy of false dilemma.
This is certainly not an argument I made. I have no idea where you got it.
Look, maybe the problem is this: it looks to me like you keep trying to the echoes of what you
think you already know about Theism in what I am saying here. You've heard about things like the God-of-the-Gaps view, and you've heard that people who believe in God make it. But actually, those are Deists, not Theists. So you're hearing what I'm saying through that filter, as if I'm a Deists.
I'm not. I'm a Christian. And I'm not making the arguments you're attributing to me. You'll need a Deist to defend them, and I don't know one, so I can't help you with that. If you want a defence of God-of-the-Gaps. you'll need to look elsewhere.
