When a federal judge barred a Pennsylvania public school district in December from teaching intelligent design in biology class, it was a clear victory for those who say the idea cannot be called science.

But the ruling did little to quiet the broader debate about whether intelligent design is a legitimate competing theory to that of evolution. Supporters of intelligent design say living organisms are so complex that forces outside of natural evolution best explain unsolved biological mysteries.

That debate continued Thursday night at N.C. State University before a crowd of almost 200 people. Sponsored by the NCSU and Wake chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union, the debate featured four speakers -- one scientist and one philosopher from both sides of the issue.

Arguing in favor of intelligent design were Gerald Van Dyke, an NCSU botany professor, and Robert Hambourger, an NCSU associate professor of philosophy.

Arguing in favor of evolution were John Gray, a molecular biologist in the private sector, and Douglas Jesseph, a philosophy professor at NCSU.

They offered the following thoughts during a two-hour discussion of the topic:

Gray: "The theory of evolution has been around a long time. It wasn't even called 'evolution' when people began thinking they might have come from other organisms over time. But there was no mechanism in place to define how that happened.

"Charles Darwin in 1858 came up with the hypothesis about natural selection, but it wasn't until 1892 that the term 'evolution' was used to describe his theory. Since that time it has been tested a great deal and is now thought of as fact by most biologists.

"The basic theory has never been disproved. Some of the mechanisms people came up with have been disproved and fallen out of favor, but the facts of evolution have never fallen out of favor."

Van Dyke: "Most of the leaders in the intelligent design movement don't accept that there are adequate naturalistic explanations ... for the fine-tuning of the physical constants in nature. Intelligent design proponents think that the evidence for and against the theory of evolution should be taught in public schools and that science needs to be expanded to allow intelligent causes. Many in the ID movement believe that science is due for a revolution in its basic assumptions."

Jesseph: "You mention the fine-tuning of the universe. As far as I know, in the last year and a half, the fine-tuning argument has basically been stomped into the dirt because the currently accepted cosmological models solve the fine-tuning problems.

"If we believe that human beings are designed, it seems plausible that in addition to wondering and marveling at the design, we could also critique it. Whoever designed the human knee or the gastrointestinal tract is a very lousy designer, unlikely to get better than a C-minus in design class."

Hambourger: "The difference between the two sides ... is not whether evolution took place but something much less concrete and much harder to address by empirical research: Could evolution have taken place without planning, or could it only come about by intelligent design?

"But God, if he exists, could easily have designed the world to come about in just this way, by a long evolutionary process."

Gray: "Should intelligent design be taught in science class? I believe the answer is no, because it does not accommodate the scientific method in which an hypothesis can be developed and experiments designed for testing.

"Evolution is now considered a fact by nearly all biologists, allowing biologists to place all living creatures in a meaningful context and enabling scientists to have insights that might otherwise be unimaginable. Can we say the same about intelligent design?"

Van Dyke: "I would challenge Dr. Gray to give me any evidence of macro-evolution. I do not think, as a scientist, there is any evidence beyond micro-evolution to support [the idea] that we evolved from some other form of life."

Gray: "We are very closely related to the chimp."

Van Dyke: "Not really."

Gray: "Yes, we are. Ninety-six percent of our genome is virtually identical to the chimp. It is part of the species separation process."

Hambourger: "It just shows you how incredibly complex chimps are -- and we are."

Jesseph: "The intelligent design theory just doesn't cut it. Even with a lot of improvement, it would still be lousy science. It is not even up to the level of voodoo.

The main problem is it doesn't explain anything. To be told that fundamental elements of living things were designed by a designer about whom we know nothing other than he is intelligent and he designed is really to go nowhere. That's like explaining the inebriating properties of beer by the fact that it has a special drunk-making quality in it that is such that when you drink it you become inebriated."

Hambourger: "I think there is a serious danger that only you can know by looking into your own soul ... that secularists are motivated not by a genuine love of freedom and the Constitution but in many cases by a real dislike of religion.

"If those are your motives, I think it's important for you to realize you are in danger of two things: One is you are being extremely intolerant, and secondly, you are being a real hypocrite in trying to do so on the grounds of civil liberties."