Not the other one.
One thing that strikes me very clearly is that this is a scientific debate. That may seem obvious, but many have characterized the debate as one between “science” and “religion”, or between two philosophical views. It comes across very clearly to me that the facts, the details, matter very much here. We are not yet at the point of proclaiming that the facts are all known and now we are just debating over the interpretation of the facts.
The other thing that strikes me is that this kind of debate is exactly what we created the CSS for. Rather than spend time debating whole categorical ways of removing the other person’s argument from the table, we are debating science. Too much of the ID debate is wasted in arguments that “it is not science as I define science” or “it is bad apologetics”, etc. With a good deal in common philosophically, we are more prepared to actually debate the science.
Working with the problem could be fun.
Well, okay, CSS is not as cool as strummin’ Darwin’s guitar, but who knows, it might catch on among lab rats. Those people spend their Saturday nights padding around labs in sneakers anyway.