Joined: Jan. 2007
ID proponent: We have a mathematical proof that evolution can't produce features X,Y, and Z. This proves intelligent design is the only way to generate these features, and totally removes the need for subjective measures of how amazingly complicated life is to conclude ID.
Scientist: Never mind the obvious logical flaw in your argument, your math is wrong, inapplicable to the problem, and usually both.
ID proponent: No it isn't. It's a mathematical proof. Therefore it's right.
Scientist: But it's wrong. You failed to account for A,B, and C, and this says 2+2 = 5. That's just wrong.
ID proponent: Oh. But look how amazingly complicated life is! Therefore ID. Q.E.D.
EDIT: it appears as though DaveScot has changed the initial text on the linked post, originally I believe the first line read something like "Chu-Carroll's argument against Behe focusses on the point that Behe doesn't consider dynamic fitness landscapes...". At least that's a paraphrase of my impression of the original post... I think it's somewhat accurate, but correct me if I'm wrong.