Its going to take me an evening or two to write up the 'Dembski vs Masked Man' post, so to keep you all occupied, and to mix it up a bit-- here are two Qs without the As! Lets see if anyone can guess the general theme of Dembskis responses!
CLUES: Both responses are word-salads that contain the phrase "Well... I mean", rampant passive aggression, numerous inapplicable analogies, and never actually answer the Qs.
Young gentleman-- Since your not actually positing who the intelligent designer is or how he is allegedly doing the designing, how can it be considered a theory? Basically youre setting up a critique or negation of evolution. How are you actually positing anything or proving your theory, outside of just saying theyre wrong, therefore Im right?
Question 2 (got LOTS of laughs and applause from the audience)--
Gentleman-- First, Id like to thank you for acknowledging that science and religion can coexist. Its an underappreciated idea these days. So my question is, seems like what we're hearing a lot of, is evolutions 'shortcomings', and very little evidence for design. Your explanatory filter simply shows that complex structures are unlikely to have arisen under (couldnt hear word) properties. Where is the evidence for ID? (Dembski responds) Motercycles and Mt. Rushmore are very different from biological systems. (Dembski responds) Ive read a lot about the flagellum, and a motorcycle is obviously the product of a designer. But a motorcycle wasnt just designed de novo and ran out on the street. It required a lot of trial and error and tinkering, and selection of the parts...