For ToErs Eyes Only

Firstly, I agree that the debate is mostly for the audience (i.e. the lurkers). Most creationists who post here won't change their mind. But check the recent posts of mike_the_wiz for an exception.On the whole we have little choice but to present science, confront creationists with evidence, and remain polite. Otherwise we will be seen as losers.Maybe some folk who know enough to do so, could compile a list of medical treatments and drugs that come from research based on evolutionary biology. But we have to be careful not to exagerate in presenting such a list.

We are not debating to convert the creationists. We are debating to leave a public record for all of the inquisitive people who visit the web site. Some of them are honestly trying to reach a decision. Let's continue to help them.

My current opinion is that we should allow topics to be initiated by those who have questions, those you describe as our audience.Once questions are asked, we should attempt to answer them as clearly as we can, and in a friendly manner where we can.That's just my opinion. You might have different ideas. It's always hard to tell until the decision is in.

That would be reading too much into my comment. As far as I know, evidence is still being presented.I'm not following this very closely, but I am seeing regular reports on the usenet group talk.origins . I think there are some blogs that give a play by play account.You have probably seen the reports on Behe admitting that he would have to consider astrology to be science. As best I can tell, the ID proponents are looking pretty silly. However, cases like this are sometimes decided on narrow technical grounds, so that makes it hard to guess what the final outcome will be.

Found with a google lookup.