That is a fair question. I just hope to move us past “vocabulary checking” one another as if this some how proves the other does not understand us or is ignorant.
@Jonathan_Burke made an offhand statement that you are entitled to disagree with on merits. However, it did not display his ignorance of ID. No, he was not ignoring the reality ID has more developed definitions of complexity. You read into his statement, without justification, that he was talking about “mere” complexity, whatever that is.
Now if you had a hard time interpreting him the first time, a better response to ask a clarifying question or send him a private message. You could have asked him what types of arguments he was referring too. I’m sure he would have pointed you quickly to Behe’s IC argument, which would have demonstrated he included IC when he referred to complexity, and didn’t mean “mere” complexity (what ever that means) as you feared. In fact, that is exactly what he did do in his response to you. So he clearly knows this.
This is turning into a silly argument where you making the absurd claim that summarizing ID in the same way Behe summarizes ID is evidence that we are misrepresenting the arguments and are ignorant of the claims. Now, we’ve presented with clear evidence that this is not the case on several levels. (1) ID advocates summarize ID in the same way. (2) we actually do know the ID arguments. Rather than recognizing we are not nearly as ignorant or dishonest as you think, you just want to argue on. Why?
So I agree,
We disagree on substance. Let’s not pretend like an offhand comment is worth arguing about. Let it go.