There are two issues which the Darwinists always gloss over: Mutations do NOT lead to novel information. And the Cambrian explosion blows gradualism out of the water. Otherwise, the fairytales are "attractive" to those who by all means want to avoid the prospects of a creator.

Brilliant debate.  Two PhD professors debating in a civil manner and distinguished members of the audience asking questions.  

If you materialists could act more like Palumbi and less like Dawkins, Shermer, Krauss etc... we could make some real progress even with our diametrically opposed worldviews. If you just continue to act like children, however, you're just gonna keep getting schooled, because children belong in school. :)

Probably the most civil discussion on the topic I've ever seen.

I respect Palumbi, I do. He doesn't come off like an a-hole like so many other materialists like Shermer, Dawkins, et al.

Palumbi’s thoughtful answer to “irreducible complexity” as an objection to evolution from simplicity to complexity transfers the supernatural wisdom which creationists attribute to the creator, to “natural selection”, a “force” (like gravity) to which he feels no need to explain in terms of motivation or reason. This is a literal deus ex machina. I’ve never seen a creative force that lacked reason or purpose. To attribute such attributes to natural selection is to personalize and deify natural selection. Why not just call it “God”?

A model of public debate and conversation on an important topic of science and culture - civil, engaging, and illuminating.

When was this recorded?

@MrKgatl This debate is not about "new evidence" for creationism (you can find that elsewhere), it is about the weaknesses in the currently accepted educational system, which is biased against any theories proposing an intelligent designer. Is the intelligent design idea truly scientifically oriented? Or is it as you said, mere fairy tales? These guys are educated enough to want to do this debate in an intelligent way, I don't think Palumbi would waste his time debating the existence of Santa claus in the north pole. Think about that for a minute. Maybe there's something to this ID thing...

Love hearing Dr Wells

There are massive holes in evolution theory. If non-believers want to believe it fine. But don't act like it's as true as 1+1=2.

The guy who said creationism or ID is a conspiracy theory would have to make the case that life is a crime and that there was more than 1 creator or intel designer. Also, the implication is that all conspiracy theories are wrong, when most are right.

Wells is spot-on with abiogenesis, proteins do not form naturally

This event took place November 28, 2001.

Dr. Jonathan Wells wrote a critique giving much evidence that much of the Evolutionary theory is wrong.

My comment with Palumbi is that he does not differentiate between micro and macro evolution. Micro evolution is an experimental science while macro evolution dealing with evidence that remain is historical or forensic science.