Now there's an audio of the debate available (I still have to find the time to hear it all).
Prothero rebuts the criticisms listed on the Discovery Institute's site.
And Michael Shermer has written his review of the debate, too, in which he points out the IDists convoluted debate tactics:
The problem, of course, is that evolutionary theory primarily deals with how life changes, not how it originated in the first place. No matter, because in the entire 25 minutes allotted for Meyer and Sternberg, they never once even mentioned the origin of life, and instead attacked “neo-Darwinism,” population genetics, rates of mutation, etc., none of which has anything whatsoever to do with the origins of life. By contrast, Don devoted his 15 minutes to instructing the audience on where the science of life’s origins is today, basically covering his 15-week college course in one minute per week’s worth of material.Robert Crowther has a reply to Shermer, which contains this jewel:
Unbelievably, Meyer opened by accusing us of dodging the debate question!
In our uniform and repeated experience, information only comes from minds (read: intelligence). So why should we attribute the information in DNA to a mindless process like natural selection? Meyer doesnt' think we should. Obviously, ID is an inference from the evidence, not from religious scriptures or practices.Bad, bad, bad inference.
Second, it is clear that Darwinists are unable to demonstrate that the mechanism they champion, natural selection acting on random mutation (the subject of the debate), is capable of accounting for the complexity and diversity of life. On the contrary, it is clear that it is incapable, a point made repeatedly during the debate by Sternberg and Meyer.How is it clear? By what evidence? That Meyer et al. repeat that it is so does not make it so.
Still no word about the debate from Meyer/Sternberg to be seen anywhere. They are probably just busy doing science...