please delete my comment with ocelot152 as spam. thank you.

This lecture gives a fresh look at the development of life, from the point of view of the developers of THING: an autonomous nano-machines complex, designed to auto clone itself out of molecules and energy that it gathers from its ambient.

Basic systems are described, including a quality control system named EVO1.

The author suggests that if we put aside our preconditioning (as believers of either evolution or creation), and look just at the hard evidence, this becomes the OBVIOUS story of LIFE.

Speaking of rambling filibusters, what if editor-b and ron were to debate each other? If there’s no time, will your opponent ever shut up?

ROFLMAO

perfect.

I also would recommend you not do the “debate” because it may be (probably is) only a promotion effort for ID.

I offer some critique:
1. Do you know what the proposition is? I this a discussion or a debate?
2. Avoid letting him set the frame of the discussion – that is, avoid the position of defending evolution on his terms. His terms were on the outskirts of science knowledge (where the models are not complete) in a field little known by the general public (microbiology and probability). Therefore, the one statement that, I think, you could use will be lost and ignored. I noticed it because I was looking for it. (The statement: science produces results – predicts observations – and ID does not. You did talk of the scientist going into the lab to get results, but this is lost on the general public because they don’t understand what this means to them. The part of “ID does not” was really lost.
3. How to set the frame – define science in a 15 second sentence or 2 in the beginning. Usually in a debate each side has an introductory remark. Include what purpose science serves to people and how it works. Talk of the computer not the semiconductor/solid state science.
4. Suggestion: Science is a part of human knowledge that helps people and our species survive by advancing our ability to predict observations (you said “results” that I think is a bit too esoteric). Our knowledge is limited and growing. Predicting brings us the ability to make machines, to lengthen our life span, to be comfortable, and to control our environment. Evolution is a science because it has predicted and continues to help us expand our knowledge. How does ID help us expand our ability to create the future?
5. You could follow up with a statement specifying religion’s purpose without triggering the creation part of Judaic philosophy: Religion also serves us by enforcing morals that hold society together.
6. Or, the 5 second intro.: Science and traditional religion help people advance, ID offers nothing more.
7. The frame could be science helps people and ID does not. ID is useless because it overlaps the other great aid to people – religion. What part of ID offers anything more than traditional Judaic religious belief that also offers the moral glue that holds society together? ID is vacuous.
8. Then question repeatedly “How does ID help people?” “How does ID help us advance?” “You (ID) haven’t said anything positive, you only attack.”
9. Avoid getting hung up on some esoteric part of science such as microbiology and probability (favorites of IDers). The general public doesn’t understand the technobable except to ascribe some expertise on the paret of the speaker. IF you respond in technobable, ID wins the credibility. When the subjects on the edge of science arise – so note it is a field of investigation and we will know it sometime as we have often learned these thing through science.
10. The BIG BANG also plays into the ID discussion. It begs the question of what caused the bang. Turtles all the way down should be avoided because it suggests ID. Better, I think, to focus on the idea science knows only a portion of the universe and is learning more. Not “going into a lab” but “learning more”. Traditional religion serves the remaining need of humans therefore ID is unnecessary.
11. Drop the “not fair” kind of thing. Nature is not fair. Selection is not fair. “Fair” today is a liberal goal. Your opponent did not pursue this but the attack could be nature is cruel and definitively not fair. How can this unfair process of natural selection be good for us?
12. What purpose in nature do humans serve? Why did we evolve? Answerers to these could have been used in a few contexts of ID propositions.
13. The ID idea of a better mousetrap being designed only by design could be fought a bit better. (In my day it was a better mousetrap which was solved by noting the tie clip.) The watch seems to be the thing now. What is needed is an example of a (simple) machine created by man that serves as a missing link.
14. I noticed recently ID opponents choose to not pursue the “goldilocks” issue. The two DVDs I showed the classes were about the goldilocks and mousetrap issues (“Where does the evidence lead?” and “Unlocking the mystery of life”).
15. Sometimes when the discussion reaches a point of the ID has nothing more, the ID discussion turns to personal attack, slander and shouting (or conversation hogging) – definitely not collegial. I don’t know how to handle this. My approach has been to note they lose and stop trying. This may not be possible in your venue.
16. You must find a way to deal with interruptions and long tirades. The moderator is supposed to handle this. Is the moderator neutral or an ID enthusiast – don’t do it your only the fall guy in promoting ID.
17. Another apparently recent thrust of ID is to frame the issue in the Dawkin’s 2 alternatives that I paraphrase: (a) God created the universe in such a way that mankind would arise and complexity would increase. (b) God created the complexity and evolution couldn’t possibly do this – (the ID) case. The first is often phrased differently. I point out both are religious issues and not science related. Go argue with a priest not a science guy.
Good luck.