Continuing the discussion from Side Comments on Nelson's Signal + Noise:
It seems to be a social contract, a political bargain,
Those that affirm Common Descent (CD) are welcome in ID, and will be accepted there. Everyone within ID will focus on the common ground.
Those that affirm CD in ID, however, will not emphasize the case for CD, nor will they dispute arguments made against CD by others in ID.
ID proponents that dispute CD will publicly argue against CD, but they will not take ID proponents that support CD to task on this.
If the debate against CD gets too contentious and fixated, someone at ENV will reassure everyone that CD is compatible with ID, begging the question of why DI spends any time arguing against it at all.
From a scientific point of view, it seems like a better strategy would be to ditch the arguments against UCD. I’m not sure what it buys you within science. Whether or not UCD is correct, it does not tell us anything about ID. If ID is true, it does not tell us anything about UCD. If ID is really neutral with respect to common descent, it would make most sense if you (ID) were as careful about avoiding arguments against CD as you have been against connecting the “designer” to “God.”