ID - another "god of the gaps" argument?

Dennis Alexander runs a molecular immunology group at Cambridge University and has also written two books on science from a Christian perspective. Recently a version of one of his lectures has been published on the web here. He has recently expanded his attack on Intelligent Design from a Christian perspective. His article is available here entitled "Is Intelligent Design Biblical?" and a shortened version of it is due to be published in the British Christian monthly "Evangelicals Now."

This is the second post in the series discussing Dr Alexander's short statement opposing ID from a Christian perspective. (The first post is here.)

Are ID people following a will-o-the-wisp “God of the gaps” argument?

Dr. Alexander asserts that ID people are enthusiastically embracing an apologetic mirage which will gradually fade away as scientific knowledge increases. He believes that given time natural forces under the normal government of God will be all that is required to explain all of biology. As the gaps in our knowledge decrease the God we needed to explain the gaps gradually contracts to the point where we see that this sort of God was not needed at all.

The God of the gaps argument against ID assumes for its validity that there are no gaps which require God’s direct intervention. This is precisely the point at issue! Just because some gaps have been crossed does not imply that all gaps can be crossed. To dismiss ID as another “God of the gaps” argument is just the same as asserting it is wrong without bothering to consider it.

For Dr. Alexander to imply that in the nine years since the publication of Darwins Black Box the problem of the evolution of the blood clotting system has been essentially solved is simply an abuse of his position as a respected scientist.

Dr. Alexander knows that despite huge efforts the whole field of abiogenesis is still just as empty of real explanations for the origin of life now as it was 30 years ago. Indeed the more work that is done the bigger the gap between living and not living becomes. It is sad to see a truth seeking scientist failing to acknowledge this.