withallyourmind.net

Here are the questions asked by audience members at the end of the debate (paraphrased):
1. To Ruse - How can Darwinian natural selection explain the existence of fruit trees?
2. To Ruse - Previous scientific theories have come and gone, so why should we put so much faith in Darwinism?
3. To Woodward (from a philosophy student at UCF) - Can Intelligent Design answer questions of ethics? What about tolerance?
4. To Woodward - What do you think about the Vatican rejecting Intelligent Design (USA today article on the day of the debate)?
5. To Woodward - If Intelligent Design is about science and not religion, Who gets to say who is the designer?
6. To Ruse - If Archaeoptyrex is a transitional form, what makes it beneficial? A creature which is 1/2 bird and 1/2 reptile ( a non-flying reptile with feathers) would not seem to be advantageous.

I will not comment on every question, but I found it interesting what the average college student might ask in this context. I found it peculiar that a question was posed to Woodward on what happens to values with ID. It seems to me that the questioner had an underlying assumption that those who hold to ID would be intolerant, and that that was the most important value of all. I guess that would be the most important value (if there could be one) in a purely materialistic world in which there are no absolutes. Ultimately, however, even tolerance cannot be maintained as a virtue without some non-materialistic grounding.

There was also the obligatory question concerning who gets to say who the designer is? Woodward responded by pointing out that that is not the pupose of ID. ID is a theory of design detection. It is a caricature of ID to imply otherwise. He asserted we do not find littler “Made by Yahweh” stickers in the corner of every natural object.

Ultimately, the experience was a good one. Anytime opponents can get together and rationally discuss their varying points of view, the truth may be advanced.