Thanks for the suggestions, everybody; they were all great.
Taz writes:
In short, I'd just like to say that I'm no geologist and does not pretend to know the first thing about geology. We leave the surgeries to real surgeons. Why not leave the science to the scientists? A theologian should not have a say in science and vice versa.
I agree wholeheartedly, but I think this may be a little too personal: It might sound like I'm saying he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. And regardless of whether he does or not, I don't want to become too confrontational.
Chirop writes:
Personally, I would like to know whether any method for identifying ID has been tested on objects or systems that are already known to have been intelligently designed or produced without intelligent intervention, and of complexity similar to the biological systems that are under discussion. If so, what is the false-positive rate?
That sounds really interesting, but I need to make sure I understand the question first. Is this meant to show that IDists have no real methods for testing intelligent design? And what are some examples of complex, unintelligent features that rival biological systems? This would be a great question to ask, but I want to make sure he doesn't blow smoke and not address it.
jar writes:
why has almost every life form that ever existed gone extinct.
This seems to be a simple question and it sounds great. But what exactly is the percentage of extinct species in relation to the total number of species that have lived on Earth? I've heard around 97%, but I'm not too sure about that. Anyway, it sounds like the "Intelligent Designer" wasn't the most competent technician, but maybe he'll have an answer.
sidelined writes:
If yes , then ask him what intelligence designed the intelligent designer that designed the world.
Sorry, but I pretty much agree with Doddy here: He'll simply spout off the usual "God is outside space and time" garbage. And, because I probably won't get to ask a follow-up question, he'll look like he adequately defended his position against the argument.
And besides, I never was very impressed with this "who made the Designer" argument, anyway, even with Richard Dawkins making it the centerpiece of his case against theism. Maybe someday I'll recognize it's validity, but right not I don't think it's terribly convincing. Thanks for the input, though.