Actually, fishing around on this topic, I note that William Dembski comments specifically on this:
“There are many thinkers who are sympathetic to design but who prefer that all the design in the world be front-loaded. The advantage of putting all the design in the world at, say, the initial moment of the Big Bang is that it minimizes the conflict between design and science as currently practiced.”
He seems to assume this is necessarily my option 1—i.e. a mechanistic, deistic model “which always served as an unsatisfactory halfway house between theism (with its informationally open universe) and naturalism (which insists the universe remain informationally closed).”
Option 2 may—or may not—avoid the pitfalls of deism, while still harmonising with methodological naturalism.
He goes on to claim that “The only legitimate reason to limit all design to front-loaded design is if there could be no empirical grounds for preferring interactive design to front-loaded design.”
I’ve followed Dembski over the years and even briefly corresponded with him, and appreciate his writing and personal journey with ID. Happy to discuss this further with anyone who’s interested…
Intelligent Design Topic: Must All the Design in the Natural World Be Front-Loaded? .