@pnelson, I know you are busy today, but when you get the time …
I am sort-of on your side (as much as an ID critic can be) with respect to ID needing to separate itself from Common Descent. Without a hard break from UCD, there is no distinguishing between that which designed and that which evolved. I’m sure you recognize that as a regular criticism of ID too. With UCD firmly intact, it is possible that evolution itself may be the designer.
So while I think you are on the right track to break from UCD, I don’t think that can lead to a successful scientific theory, given the strength of evidence for CD. Where does this leave you? Would you be contents to be just a YEC (as a matter of faith), and not a supporter of ID as a science?
So based on your very interesting quote below from the linked thread, it would seem that @pnelson does not immediately recognize that Drs Behe and @swamidass differ from each other principally in two ways:
 Joshua publicly affirms the special creation while Behe so far has not; and
 Behe believes science can confirm design while Joshua does not!
He does? Holy crap, Batman.
No… Joshua doesnt affirm Batman… nor the oxymoron of Holy Crap.
@Patrick nothing new here except @gbrooks9’s imprecision. I don’t think there is evidence against the de novo creation of Adam within a larger population. That is not the same as “affirming special creation.”
I accept your corrective discussion. It may make for some more cumbersome phrases!.. but the precise wording is worth the effort.
(@moderators: take notice of my taking notice of Joshua’s direction!)
The challenge here @gbrooks9 is there is a lot of either or thinking here. “Affirming special creation” is usually understood as rejecting CD. When ever special creation is dicussed, it is work juxtaposing the affirmation of CD, of people get confused very quickly.
I agree completely.
And to think … if some ID folks on this list hadnt misunderstood the actual import of what Behe’s discussion was… we wouldnt have achieved this major clarification!