Greetings from beautiful Tucuman, Argentina!
The main point of my withdrawn paper was the tautology:
If an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is isolated, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering (or leaving) which makes it NOT extremely improbable.
When is a tautology controversial? When it contradicts the consensus view of science, which is that anything can happen in an open system as long as something (anything) is happening outside which, if reversed, would be even more improbable! (See my video, starting at about minute 4, if you don’t believe that is what the consensus view is all about.) I looked at the very equations on which this “compensation” argument is based and showed that they actually support my tautology (not sure if tautologies need support?), that when order increases (entropy decreases) in an open system in other applications, it is not because something extremely improbable (in the sense of footnote 4) is happening, but because something is entering the system which makes this increase not extremely improbable.
But, you ask, can’t Darwinists still argue that, thanks to the wonders of natural selection and the influx of solar energy, what has happened on Earth is not really extremely improbable? Of course they can, that is the whole point of my extremely controversial article (which did not mention ID or Darwinism, by the way, and certainly did not appeal to the supernatural). But it is so obvious that what has happened IS extremely improbable, that they would apparently still rather argue with a tautology.
See also: ID-friendly math prof Granville Sewell gets apology and damages from journal