Your quote "Or to put it more succinctly, the evolutionary biologist describes but the mathematician/physicist explains" seems to me to encapsulate the problem with the discussion on this thread....
With evolution, biologists describe what the evidence seems to show has happened, but they don't even (so far as I've seen) address a cause. However, 'conventional wisdom' seems to be that they either have, or should.
At the moment, the discussion of first cause is much more productive among theologians, philosophers, physicists, cosmologists, information theorists and mathematicians. Chemists and biologists - even evolution biologists - are not on the same wavelength at all.
I look forward to any comments you may have concerning the article.
Thank you for your reply!