Let’s step back and see the big picture.
Biology is non intuitive. Probability is non intuitive. Mathematical biology is doubly non intuitive.
The ID movement has leaders that are putting forward a host of mathematical biology arguments, all is which (except 1 in population genetics) has been rejected by almost every mathematician, biologist and computational biologist in the field, includigg Christians like myself.
You guys are not adding anything to these arguments at all, except revealing a lot of confusion we wouldnt expect from one of the principles. Even if you were to convince @T_aquaticus it myself you are right this will do nothing to change the gridlock ID faces in science.
So what is a rational goal in this situation.
-
If you want to understand why we reject these arguements we are happy to explain. You don’t have to agree but at least make understanding the basics a goal instead of trying to convince us. I’m fine if you disagree, but I’m not interested in arguing about it endlessly.
-
Invite the principles like Dembski, Durston, Axe, Behe, and Marks to join us here to make there case. If you work hard at #1 you might even be able to follow the conversation. They might have a better chance of convincing us of something than you; this much should be certain.
-
Find ways to work around the predicament ID is painted into so you are not limited by the strength of their arguments. Find a better way forward.
-
Figure out why ID has not retracted any of their falsified arguments.
In the end you don’t have to agree with us, but let’s at least choose to use our time productively. I’ve delayed in a promised exchange with @EricMH that will be far more enlightening, and he was a PhD student of Marks, and is much better qualified than you guys to make progress. Don’t you want to see that exchange?