Anyone catch NPR's "On Point" yesterday? It was a sorta debate btwn the Discovery Institute's George Gilder and Oxford's Richard Dawkins. Apparently, Dawkins decided at the last minute NOT to debate Gilder directly, only come on after him (pretty wimpy if you ask me). I understand that he doesn't want to lend Gilder any credibility, but in listening to Gilder, I don't know what Dawkins was afraid of. He sounded confused, inarticulate, and repetitous; alot like Bush, in fact. At one point, Gilder betrayed the real rationale for his pseudoscience, saying "In the Beginning, there was the Word…" If this is the best that I.D. can come up with, maybe rational people should take the opposite tack: call out the I.D. guys in some national forum, and expose them for the frauds and religious wingnuts that they are. What do ya'll think?