Good Intelligent Design debate: mp3 podcast

[Qdrop]

http://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/audiomartini_7Dec05.mp3

it did give me a tiny fraction of respect for some of those on side of ID from a scientific standpoint.
the ID speaker in this debate does seem to HONESTLY have a scientific interest in irreducible complexity and complexity of design, and seems to distance himself slightly from a religious base....but you can still hear it bleed through in his philosophies.

the ID representative does seem like a very smart fellow, regardless.

[ASsman]

And?

[yeahwho]

And?

You ASsman are a fine example of "Good Intelligent Design".

any debate?

[Qdrop]

And?

the WINNER IS SCIENCE!!

HOORAY!

[ToucanSpam]

Irreducible complexity is too weak an argument. Remember not a year ago Michael Behe's case was given a 'whoopin' by the Judge in that case in pennsylvania. I agreed with the judge then that just because evolution can't explain the complexity of some organelles in cells that ID theory is valid; just because it's A doesn't mean it has to be B.

Either way, I'm going to listen to this podcast with much interest.

[ASsman]

You ASsman are a fine example of "Good Intelligent Design".

any debate?
Damn straight.