I haven’t been following this debate at Opposing Views although I was invited to participate and am in frequent contact with those people writing for the ID side. I believe the debate is closed now. I declined the invitation because I thought it would simply be a rehash of all the old arguments and nobody ever really wins. The argument from design, unlike what some people here have claimed, is as old as Plato and Aristotle. It predates the birth of Christ by several centuries and probably much more. Evidence of order and design in the universe is abundant and clear to any thinking individual and people have been thinking for a very long time. The appearance of design is abundant and clear but the nature of the designer is not. Thus in order to explain the where, why, and how of the design a plethora of creator mythologies have been made up out of whole cloth. The notion that the modern ID movement is creation science in cheap tuxedo is a lie. Creation science is a relative newcomer on the scene. ID doesn’t try to find material evidence for and explanations of things like a global flood, a young earth, the parting of the Red Sea, people turning into pillars of salt, or any of that stuff.
Anyhow, all this is evident in the debate. You see our side is all about math, science, logic, and reason. The opposing side is all about accusing us of being nothing but god botherers wanting to get copies of the holy bible placed in all public school classrooms. The usual suspects and the usual arguments…
With about 70 billion stars and as many as 100 million life forms (at least here on Earth), the universe is a stunningly complex place. Did all of this matter evolve independently, or was it guided by a larger force – as proponents of intelligent design believe? With the debate raging in living rooms, classrooms and courtrooms, the stakes are high when it comes to determining intelligent design’s merit.
Some position titles & authors at the link:
ID Uses Scientific Method; Infers Design by Testing Positive Predictions
Intelligent Design Has Scientific Merit in Paleontology
Any Larger Implications Do Not Disqualify ID From Having Merit
ID Does Not Address Religious Claims About the Supernatural
ID is Constitutional and has Educational and Legal Merit
ID Promises To Open Up New Avenues of Scientific Research
Above by the Discovery Institute for the pro side
Detecting Design is a Matter of Physical Evidence and Logic
Darwin’s Mechanism Doesn’t Produce Design
The Sophisticated Nanotechnology of the Cell Reeks of Design
Above by Michael Behe for the pro side
Is Intelligent Design Science?
Is There Merit for ID in Cosmology, Physics, and Astronomy?
Isn’t ID Just a Sneaky Way to Get God into the Public Square?
Above by Jay Richards for the pro side
Intelligent Design is in Fact Religiously Based
Intelligent Design is a Quest for the Supernatural
It’s Bait and Switch
Avove by the Ayn Rand Institute for the con side
Intelligent Design is a Religiously Motivated Attack on Science
Scientists See No Scientific Merit in ID
ID is a Relabeling of Creationist Attacks on Science Education
Teaching ID in the Public Schools Infringes Constitutional Rights
Academic Freedom isn’t a License to Present Non-Science like ID
By the National Center for Science Education for the con side
Intelligent Design Is Unconstitutional
Public Schools Are Not Supposed To Promote Religion
By Americans United for the con side