Continuing the discussion from Bill Cole's Case For Design:
An important point came up that deserves its own thread with all those here who have been posting ID arguments or trying to argue against common descent (@colewd, @anon46279830, @Nonlin.org, @Ashwin_s). This is particularly relevant to those posting mathematical arguments, or are engaging questions already answered with mathematical arguments.
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 of which (except 1 in population genetics) have been rejected by almost every mathematician, biologist and computational biologist on earth, including Christians like myself.
You guys are not adding anything to these arguments at all, except revealing a lot of confusion we wouldn’t expect from one of the principals. Even if you were to convince @T_aquaticus and myself (or any of the other scientists here), even if 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 arguments 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 their 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. We are hoping to do that with you.
Figure out why ID has not retracted any of their falsified arguments. They are much more likely to listen to you guys on this than us.
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?
Any how, I’d like to set reasonable goals with people here. Remember, you do not have to agree with me on ID or common descent. I’m not really interested in arguing with you for the purpose of changing your mind. I’d rather find a way to coexist with you, in the midst of disagreement. How can we make this all more functional?