A few weeks ago, the NCSE’s youtube channel uploaded a 2002 debate featuring our very own William Dembski and Michael Behe, each of whom presented a short description of their contribution to the science of ID, before being cross-examined by Michigan State University philosopher Robert Pennock, and Brown University biologist, Kenneth Miller. The debate was chaired by the ever-impartial Eugenie Scott, of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE).
Miller brought up the traditional arguments which he has become so renowned for, alleging that Behe’s claims regarding irreducible complexity were false on the basis that 10 proteins homologous to a complement of those present in the flagellar system could be found in the Type-III Secretary System. When Behe attempted to explain why such a discovery offered no traction to neo-Darwinism, Miller insisted that he only respond to the question which was being asked (which was, apparently, the legitimacy of Miller’s substantially tweaked definition of irreducible complexity, rather than the causal mechanism of evolution and its explicative powers to produce the powerful illusion of design in biological systems).
Pennock, meanwhile, repeatedly confused the concept of a theoretical basis for design detection (which ID proponents are unanimously in agreement on) and a theory of design implementation (which we are currently lacking unanimity on).