`Agree Wade's version is excellent and present's the critic's arguments very clearly and accurately. I see no reason not to prefer it.  Dealing with each item raised by FM, in italics below:  ``Wade should take the time to become familiar with the historical arguments which arise in positing an uncaused causer to avoid falling into long-identified logic traps then burdening us with his objections.``  This is a distraction introduced by Wade from his own point, presumably in an attempt to clarify. Let's rather tackle Wade's main point of original research.  ``... the ``fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design...`` part of the passage ... is already supported by two cites: ...``  You left out the first part of the critic's argument under discussion. The full text being contested as original research is:  ``the postulation of the existence of even a single uncaused causer in the Universe contradicts a fundamental assumption of Intelligent Design ...etc``  This particular topic is not about the fundamental assumption or whether it is correct or not, but about the critic's application of the assumption to contradict the existence of an uncaused causer. It is necessary to cite the critic's argument because it is the critic's argument - and not ID - which logically presumes that any causer or designer must be a specifically complex object. Otherwise there is no contradiction.  However as far as I'm concerned if it can be shown that ID does assume that the designer must be specifically complex, then clearly we do not need a cite for the critical argument under contention because it would then be logically obvious.  Therefore obections to the suitability of the cites need to show both (1) that the cite is not the above argument OR has not been made by a leading critic and (2) that the cite is not an ID statement that a designer must be specifically complex.  Note. When I state below that something is 'Not the argument by a leading critic' what I mean is that the person is not a leading opponent of ID AND/OR that the argument presented cannot be interpreted as saying that an uncaused causer contradicts the fundamental assumption of ID as claimed (that every specifically complex object must be designed)  :*70. ``Intelligent design, on the other hand, involves two basic assumptions: 1) Intelligent causes exist. 2) These causes can be empirically detected (by looking for specified complexity).`` Access Research Network. Frequently Asked Questions about Intelligent Design.   :(1)Not the argument by a leading critic :(2)Does not show that ID assumes that a designer must be specifically complex. :   (Shows only that a set of specifically complex objects implies a designer) :(Can we remove this citation please)   :*71. ``According to contemporary design theory, the presence of highly specified complexity is an indicator of an intelligent cause.`` Access Research Network. Frequently Asked Questions about Intelligent Design.   :(1)Not the argument by a leading critic :(2)Does not show that ID assumes that a designer must be specifically complex. :   (Shows only that a set of specifically complex objects implies a designer) :(Can we remove this citation please)  :*``In The Design Inference I show how inferring design is equivalent to identifying specified complexity.`` Dembski   :(1)Not the argument by a leading critic :(2)Does not show that ID assumes that a designer must be specifically complex. :   (Shows only that a set of specifically complex objects implies a designer)  :*``As I’ve argued in The Design Inference, specified complexity (or specified improbability as I call it therethe concepts are the same) is a reliable empirical marker of actual design.`` Dembski   :(1)Not the argument by a leading critic :(2)Does not show that ID assumes that a designer must be specifically complex. :   (Shows only that the existence of specific complexity requires a designer)  As for his claim that the argument itself is original research, there's no shortage of proof that it is a common criticism of ID: :#''``All that said, I don't see any reason to concede the premise that leads to the regress in the first place. We infer design on the basis of certain features of objects and