Since the flagellum gets so overused in the debate between ID and Darwinism, let’s change the system. Consider the leaf hopper.
Take a simple example, one that Rosenhouse finds deeply convincing and emblematic for biological evolution.
Rosenhouse’s book is objectively bad. It purports to be a critique of mathematics as used by ID proponents and of my mathematical work in particular.
So much in Rosenhouse’s book is careless, giving no indication that he has carefully studied and adequately comprehended my work or that of my colleagues.
Does it really need to be pointed out that roads are designed? That where they go is designed? And that even badly laid out roads are laid out by design?