Actually, to all whove particpated: this has been the most informative and entertaining debate I've seen in a great while. Lots of rational discussion with very little ad-hominem argument or insult. You are one bunch of smart guys. Let's have a beer sometime. My 2cents: There appear to be reasonable grounds to question evolution, and most often the questioners are not treated with the respect they deserve. If they are not allowed in the debate, then there is no science, only dogma. This is a problem with the global warming debate also. It's great to see both sides so fully aired! ABSENCE OF PROOF IS NOT PROOF OF ABSENCE
If they are not allowed in the debate, then there is no science, only dogma.In terms of establishing a scientific basis for their ideas, to get into the debate they have to follow the established scientific norms (presentations at scientific meetings, papers in scientific journals). If they don't, then isn't a matter of them being "allowed in the debate"; they are operationally excluding themselves.
Science operates according to one basic method: you put your data and conclusions on the table for everyone to see and potentially cut to pieces. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Behe, Wells, Dembski and Johnson (and other less notable lights) haven't even tried to get into the kitchen.
(I might be watching too much Iron Chef.)