Joanne,

You write, “…there is the fourth choice which you are not considering. As he writes: "BOTH chance and necessity (natural selection) are essential."

Actually, I was considering it. It appears in my list under, “…and so on.”

You write, “Maybe that's because the questions suggest the questioner has missed something important.”

Indeed it may be so. However, would you not agree that it is then incumbent on the person or persons being questioned to establish what the questioner knows and not blindly and, dare I say, arrogantly assume that the questioner either doesn’t understand the subject under examination or is simply ignorant of some of its points?

You write, “ID pronponents do not offer scientific interpretations that better explain the evidence. They offer non-science or junk science.”

I have touched on this in a post I wrote a few minutes ago and addressed to all following this thread. I am most interested to learn what you understand I.D. to be or mean.

You write, “The jury is not out; there is a verdict. These examples you mention are identical to the question of the bacteria's tail in the New Yorker article in the link. Read that again. Then, read up on natural selection.”

Your jury may not be out, but mine most certainly is; and do you not think that I would do well to not only read the New Yorker article in the link and read up on Natural Selection, but also read up on the subject of I.D. (not to be confused, of course, with Creationism).
If you will allow me the observation, I think one needs to study all sides of any argument to get a proper and balanced view, don’t you?

MJT