“Basic creationism holds that evolution does not occur. ID concedes that 99.9% of adaptations could occur naturally without outside intervention, but some (like the eye) could not.”

>>ID by your own argument, then, is a creationist model—just one where the unidentified intelligent designer intervenes to a lesser degree than in classic 24/7 models.

“ So Hitchens has put the thousandth nail in the coffin of the "species never evolve" idea.”

>>Gee, I thought the final nails were the multiple instances where we’ve directly observed species evolve.

“But the ID folks are saying that very complex systems could not evolve on their own.”

>>The problem is they’re saying that despite the lack of any evidence supporting the claim that very complex systems could only evolve as a result of goal oriented intervention by an unidentified designer.

“This has nothing to do with whether complex systems could change to become less complex.”

>>It does, however, since the same mechanism by which complex systems become less complex is sufficient to explain how simple systems could become more complex.