Spanning three-quarters of the thread and constituting a quarter of it: Dawn Bertot's messages. I am strongly convinced that Dawn has no idea what he/she actually thinks or is arguing in support of, beyond the conclusion that "order = design, therefore there is a designer".
This is evidenced by
the inability to use terms consistently with either other people's uses and definitions or with his/her own;
the inability or refusal to clarify what definition is being used at any given point;
the inability or refusal to answer direct and relatively simple questions about the arguments or statements;
inability or refusal to acknowledge basic logical errors and correct them afterward;
constant repetition of the same point without any further explanation or detail being added; ignorance of what the opposing point actually is;
and preference to claiming personal deficiencies in anybody questioning the statements Dawn makes, instead of addressing the questions raised, all of which sums up into avoiding any useful debate at all.
While the discussion of "can an ordered and complex universe be used as evidence of implicit design?" was somewhat good and relatively on-topic (at least, on-topic for a thread at this forum ) if not closely related, it has become stalled by Dawn's simple lack of actual discussion.
Could moderators please begin either helping the thread to return to its major theme, progressing the current discussion along to a consensus (more rapidly than at present) or ending that discussion to allow others in its place.
I know the current discussion is on-topic -- I explicitly defined how it was related to the subject, in fact.
I appreciate your efforts in trying to focus Dawn on one point at a time, but the simple problem is that Dawn won't do it. I don't know whether the avoidance is caused by misunderstanding of what is being asked or refusal to explain properly for whatever reason, but the outcome is the same: stalling of the thread.
I'm not sure whether direct moderation will really help, now that I think of it. That could only entail closing for off-topicness, suspending Dawn, or forcing us to cease discussing that issue some other way. None of those would help figure out what Dawn meant and the topic would be a vital one in any serious discussion of why ID is or is not science.
Perhaps a better method would be explaining to Dawn exactly what our issues are in a less hostile environment? Maybe you could try PMing him, Percy; that way the thread won't get more confused, and when the discussion restarts it will be on more level grounds where everybody is defining and using words or terms the same way.
27 posts since the first request for summaries, 8 since the "hey, one more post guys, srsly" message and the changing of the thread title. Multiple persons -- on both sides of the fence -- have given more than one summary, and the debate has started afresh.
As if the content and location of its comment weren't enough of a giveaway, the lunatic must also have some form of OCD about the name (seriously, why put the Xs at start and finish? It's just.. uh). Obvious troll, indeed.