Biological Evidence Against Intelligent Design

The problem here is that what you are proposing is far from anything proposed by anyone in the ID movement. The only thing resembling it I have seen was put forward by the pseudonymous Mike Gene who - so far as anyone seems to know - has no standing within the ID movement (and that was before I came here). I don't think that even Behe has gone so far, and he is probably the least unscientific of the ID leadership, but still deeply enmired in an apologetic mode of thought.I don't think that there is any point in arguing against a view that has no support in the ID community. Especially as the ID movement itself identifies ID as being against materialism (e.g. the Wedge Document) and thus cannot accept a fully naturalistic account. And if we consider the actual ID supporters here, we see that they have trouble understanding the more subtle material that ID does produce (e.g. traderdrew's confusion over the concept of CSI). I don't see how arguing against something that the ID movement doesn't even propose is going to convince them of anything.

I have already tried to clear it up multiple times, and been accused of blindness and even dishonesty for my pains.You've made it quite clear that you aren't interested in listening.