Continuing the discussion from Who is Right About Sinuses?:
Josh - That is precisely my point. I have resisted saying that my book is written as an argument against ID because it wasn’t written that way. I believe that strange quirks are best explained by common descendent and so, implicitly, they argue against design insofar as design is offered as contrary to common descent. So, much of the content of my book, I believe, challenges ID, but that doesn’t mean that it’s written as a direct challenge to ID. If that were my goal, just about every sentence of the book would be written differently and I would have chosen different examples. Many good books refuting ID have been written. My book was written for an audience that already accepts evolutionary theory. Although it wasn’t written to challenge ID, the content of the book does pose challenges because, as you note, these quirks are rather easily understood from the point of view of common descent. Without that perspective, they are conundrums. (Has an ID-based explanation for the crazy path of the recurrent laryngeal nerve been offered? What about GULO? What about other pseudogenes?)
So I am confused as to why you say that poor design arguments don’t work, while also acknowledging that biological quirks are best explained by common descent. I have never contended that poor design arguments, by themselves, are a slam dunk against ID. But in the context of everything else we know, I do think it’s a few more solid points that show that evolution is the best explanation and that ID comes up short at explaining the natural world.