This debate ( audio | 1h20m35s ) took place in 2005 between Ken Miller and Paul Nelson and focused on Intelligent Design and education.
4.25 stars. BEST
This debate took place during the height of the Dover Trial, a trial that contested whether or not ID can be taught in the classroom. Ken Miller is my favorite ID opponent and he was an expert witness at the trial, amongst many other prominent figures on both sides of the issue. IIRC, Nelson was also a witness...I think it says so in the debate.
Nelson comes off as amiable but doesn't present any interesting or new arguments. Probably the most forceful ID proponent is Stephen Meyer, IMO. I think even ID proponents would agree that Nelson doesn't bring the strongest arguments to the table and he is pretty evasive as well as wishy-washy.
Miller, on the other hand, does a great job presenting the debate. I don't think there is video of this, but if there is I would suggest ya'll check it out because Miller is usually pretty animated and integrates ppt into is presentations.
The Dover Trial brought out a lot of embarrassing things for ID proponents. It was ruled over by a conservative judge, it was documented quite extensively in the media which meant that items like the wedge document were mentioned to a wider audience, the main textbook recommended by the ID community was picked apart pretty thoroughly and there are public court transcripts riddled with silly quotes made by some of the greats of ID, like Michael Behe. In fact, Miller mentions one of Behe's more damning quotes which features him agreeing that under the criteria Behe uses to define ID as science, we would also have to define astrology as science.
So this is a pretty one-sided debate but a really nice quick listen to learn about how ID proponents are trying to get pretty much Creationism, into the classroom.
There is more to discuss but I might just leave the review here. I also might come back and add some more details but meh.
Technical: Good AQ