God is still responsible for the "naturalistic processes," determining which mutations will occur at what times, which mutations are precursors of new species and which are not, and so on.
You probably realize that that is not Darwin's theory. What you are describing is another form of creationism, but adding some of Darwin's ideas like gradual change through genetic modification over deep time, As long as you include a supernatural agent in the process, it's not Darwin's theory. That would be artificial selection, like developing new roses.
Gee, I didn't realize that the writings of Darwin came with a codicil like the Bible, not to add to or subtract anything from his holy theory.
Now you know. If you delete or modify genetic variation and/or natural selection, it's not Darwin's theory any more.
There is room for additions such a punctuated equilibrium, however. You might say that once that idea is added that it is not Darwin's theory any more, but that would be a different sense from the way I meant it, since it would still contain it.
I suppose you could say there's an element of ID in my beliefs--but only in that I believe that there is a Creator.
You also believe that that creator is actively involved in determining how life evolves with a goal in mind. That is most definitely intelligent design. If one adds an unfalsifiable, faith based, nonscientific element of supernaturalism to what was a scientific theory before the addition, it makes it into a religious idea.
You're not alone, however. A person who claims to accept the scientific theory but who also believes that man was made in God's image, for example, has gone down that same road. When such a person tells you that they accept evolution, they are not talking about Darwin's theory.
So as a book of spiritual truth, its "vagueness" does a great job of speaking those truths to seekers of all cultures, religious persuasions and intellectual capacities.
Vague text means nothing specific. It's a verbal Rorschach test that tells more about the reader than the writer, meaning that it is the reader, not the text, that is the source of the understanding. You might find the process productive, but what you are doing is exploring yourself.
For example, what does this line from Bob Dylan's Desolation Row mean? "
Cinderella, she seems so easy, "It takes one to know one, " she smiles. and puts her hands in her back pockets Bette Davis style"
The answer is that it means whatever you want it to mean. The words likely evoke some image and feeling for you. I see a smug, street smart and cynical woman, maybe Lauren Bacall from one of her film noir movies, exchanging witty repartee with a typical Bogart character, her smile being more of a smirk, as he lights her cigarette under a streetlamp and calls Cinderella
sister.
Now you know a little more about how I think, not what Dylan was trying to tell us, which I presume was nothing specific at all. I'm guessing that you get a different impression.
That's what vague language means.
