Intelligent Design Theorist Tackles Tough Questions

Well, had the text of the recording been available I could show you. But seriously most of the questioners accepted most of what was said. Here's the fundamental question, what prediction can ID make that Natural Selection cannot explain? For if it can make no such prediction then by Occums Razor Natural Selection offers a better solution. all the best urban

Do you recall anyone saying ANYTHING to the effect of whether they agreed? In fact several students continued to ask additional questions because it was obvious that they DIDN'T agree. Students went to the mic, asked their questions he responded and then it was the next person's term to ask a question. Natural Selection can only select from what is present. It can't creation anything. Where is it going to get the new information from? Don't tell me if you had been you would have asked such a question?

The questions where from those sympathetic to ID? Are you kidding? Doesn't sound like you listened to it. Is there something that students in the UK know about evolution that American university students don't? Please give a sample question!

Correction, that was; http://tinyurl.com/2ktcvm

And it sounded like the evolutionist is speaking from the point of view of an atheist. How about focusing on their scientific statements and ignoring their ideologies.

I love to listen to those.. thanks! I'm very interested in the Human Genome Project.. so if you know any good stuff on that.. - have a good day:))

The difference in the video debate and what you've presented here is that the video debate is much more balance. In your link, the Intelligent Designers say their piece and each time an evolutionist comes behinds them and critiques what they have to say. So to balance it out a bit more: http://www.trueorigin.org/behe04.asp - Behe responds back to Millerhttp://www.trueorigin.org/behe05.asp -Behe hasn't finished dealing with Miller http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm - Dembski responds to Miller http://www.designinference.com/documents/01.02.pennock_anthology_MIT.htm Dembski responds back to Pennock http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.10.Scott_Response.htm Dembski responds to Scott http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_iconstouch111501.htm Wells responds back to Scott

http://www.trueorigin.org/behe05.asp - Behe hasn't finished dealing with Miller

You're great leavert. And I agree, evolution does NOTHING to the advancement of science. If they do, what? I don't know. You have a great critical mind leavert, keep it up.