Only if God is directing by interventionist means. Remember that ID only flags features which (allegedly) couldn't have been constructed by "natural" means. However most theists believe that God is fully immanent in the world -- that He is the God of ALL of nature, not just the little "designed" looking bits -- and that there is not a single "natural" process that is apart from His governance of nature.
On this view God is not limited to breaking the laws nature in order to govern it. He can direct nature without doing so. Indeed there may be, in the end, no proper distinction between "God's purposes" and the evolution of nature according to it's "natural" course.
In any case the circling back to ID is only implied, or at least only compelled, if you have an essentially "deistic" view of God: that when He doesn't "appear" to be present (is not blatantly intervening in nature) then He is actually absent. If you believe, OTOH, that God's mastery of nature extends to every photon that flys from the sun, or every leaf that separates from a branch, then -- although there might be other/addition reasons for it -- providential theism doesn't inherently require anything ID.
"On this view God is not limited to breaking the laws nature in order to govern it. He can direct nature without doing so. Indeed there may be, in the end, no proper distinction between "God's purposes" and the evolution of nature according to it's "natural" course."
I am ok with that. Its still ID in my book...maybe not the ID promoted by ID'rs, but still ID.
Of course, in order for the miracles of Christianity to be true, God did have to intervene in a supernatural way at some point....fish don't multiply in a basket...a man cannot walk on water...etc.
And if one does not believe those miracles, then likely they don't believe that God became Man, and we are back to Christianity and water.
Sometimes. We see frequent statements that the observed regularity in nature is evidence (or even proof) of design. But we often see assertions that it's the observed irregularities (like alleged instances of irreducible complexity) that reveal the role of the designer. It's hard to test a doctrine like that.
Wonderfully put! I've never seen the case for providential evolution put as well as you have put it!
ZC: you've been wondering about the difference between ID and thesitic evolution, or "providential design" as you like to call it. Well, I think Stultis has summarized it better than anyone.