This is what i wrote in a previous answer to you. Makes it pretty clear, not? About that debate, it was organized at Biola University, Which is (no surprise) a private christian university. The opponents of ID/creationism were not the most well versed with the DI arguments. From the info on the video: Only one scientist comes from a scientific field with real relevance. More important though, how can you know their arguments are scientific? That has always been my main point in this thread. Let me repeat: The researcher, institute, publisher, reviewer are all the same entity, an entity that has no further ties with any scientific body. How can we trust anything that comes from such a system? Do you? To me, that makes everything that comes from that source fatally flawed. Of course, they keep their mock science and their religion separated, that is the whole point of starting the DI. But that does not mean that their non-religious content is science, it can be bullshit without being religious. This is what i repeated on this thread, from another thread: As long as they fight for their ideas in the scientific literature, let us wait and see. I am all for forgetting about the DI, but whenever the next discussion about evolution comes around, i am sure anti-evolutionists invariably are going to prove their point by linking to DI sources. I completely disagree, the discovery of DNA, is what made evolution theory complete, it was the piece that made the puzzle complete. He would probably back up what you said backed up by linking to the DI blog "evolution news", or Axe's work, both DI. Besides that, given honest criteria for banning, and his tendency for ad hominem he would be very quickly banned.