OK, & you know I have no disagreement with this _as far as it goes_. But in
order to be convincing to those who may be dubious it's necessary to be more explicit.
It's not enough to deny that you're denying! Rather, the argument about RFEP needs to
be accompanied by an explicit statement that God DOES act with & through the natural
processes he has created in accord with the characters with which he has endowed them.
This would have at least 2 related consequences:
1) It would stop the questions &/or accusations about "deism" at the the start.
2) It would force into the open the assumptions of those who demand that God
not only _act_ but act in such a way as to show off - "leave his fingerprints all over
the evidence" &c.
In connection with this, I think that your older language of "functional
integrity of creation" is preferable to "fully gifted creation." While I realize that
you intend nothing of the sort, the latter phrase carries with a suggestion of deism.
"Gifted" is easily understood as meaning that God gave something to creation _in the
past_ so that it doesn't need anything more from God now. Instead, of course, God
continues to gift creation at every instant.
George L. Murphy