I see where the confusion lies - my comment is on the need for questions and doubt. EES is, to my mind, an example of some questions and effort that seems to be motivated by a need for a better paradigm. That is why I emphasise a debate should continue amongst the biologists, and this would follow the progress made by other sciences. Some comments seem to either dismiss some aspects of EES or perhaps argue against them - again, my point is this is for biologists.
On my point 5, I (as a non-biological scientist) have considered the basis for physics and chemistry and have worked to develop my own view of science at it may have relevance to my orthodox theological outlook. My conclusion is there is no conflict, so that is that.
As I have indicated elsewhere, I am not sufficiently familiar with the long history of the “culture” wars between TE/ID/YEC/OEC and another stripe (if others are there), so I confine my remarks to orthodox matters, or broad scientific matters.
On my view that the current paradigm of ToE is inadequate - you and others may just have to accept that as my point of view - I do not intend to indulge in aggressive exchanges for the simple fact that ToE does not figure large in my outlook. This is not meant to insult anyone, but a simple statement of fact.