SciPhi guy Jason Renie has put up a free online Audiobook, actually a set of four interviews with proponents and detractors of ID. The other two Interviews are with Michael Shermer and Nick Matzke. Go here.
Comments I just posted at the site:
“First let me applaud Jason Rennie for some interesting dialogues. In his opening remarks, his pro ID perspective shows, but in the interviews he remained largely neutral. That kind of interview approach works well in this type of controversy, where emotions run high. Personally, if it were I interviewing Michael Shermer, I fear I would have become unrestrained, and challenged him on many of the points he made. But for this kind of objective comparison, Rennie’s approach is best.
Rennie’s question to Shermer of, “what sort of a skeptic are you?”, followed by “Are you skeptical to all claims to knowledge? revealed Rennie’s unfamiliarity of the term with regard to it being a label for atheists, and it left Shermer speechless for a moment, as he splurted out, ” … no, of course not, heh heh.” They went on to have an interesting dialogue.
Salvador Cordova’s points were well made, and his historical narrative well presented, as was his take on the difficult religious issue that permeate the controversy. He well knows this from person experience, according to some of his writings on the subject. He talked about his ‘IDEA’ campus involvement. He answered well questions regarding the basic precepts of design, and why it qualifies as science.
Michael Behe’s defenses of ID, and specifically IC were well presented, and granted, he’s had a lot of practice with those issues. Darwin’s Black Box was discussed, and the weighty question of the reasons why ID is valid science. I especially liked the challenge to scientific relevance, where scientists “use their own intelligence to push things along a pathway that they think might be beneficial.” He cited examples of this throughout science. I might add, that kind of subjectivism is common in all realms of human endeavors, everything from selling you some product, to making the case for war. Behe’s arguments for evidence of design, and the defense of complexity arguments were persuasive and well proffered.
Finally, Nick Matzke’s discourse on ID and evolution was interesting, as well as a brief chronicle of his Dover involvement. I detected in Nick an openness to the question of ID if ‘only’ there could be a valid means of testing for it. He implied more than once that he did not disavow the existence of a creator, just that it had no place in science. They even got into a discourse over a Star Trek episode.
So there you have it. It’s well worth taking the time to play these clips.” The clips: