As to Gould, I suggest that he was making a retort. Much like so called proofs of god’s existance are attempted, I suggest Gould did not intend his agrument to be solid. But to point out that you cannot make this a logical proof either way.

“I thought one could push multiple designers (MDs) into the conclusions, but that will have to be a separate argument.”

Long before I read RBH’s MD hypothesis, I thought (as personal speculation, with no pretense that the argument was scientific) that life looks “designed by committee.” I guess many others did the same.

While it is important to address the flaws in design arguments, we should always keep in mind that they divert attention away from the whats, whens and hows of design actuation. Thats a useful tactic for anti-evolution activists because YEC and OEC (several versions, some of which include common descent) can’t all be right. And there’s no hope that rank and file anti-evolutionists will ever come to a consensus on one.

I thought one could push multiple designers (MDs) into the conclusions, but that will have to be a separate argument. Say, as several evolutionary mechanisms can be observably separated, the designs will most likely be made up by MDs with different characteristics. The problem being “functions” (so drift is out, for example, while I guess endosymbiosis would be in).

If Nelson publishes, I assume you could include a reference to his earlier work in a published reply to take care of it this time around.