Q: What happens when a geologist or biologist debates a young earth creationist?
A: The YEC’s audience learns nothing they’re willing to take on board, the biologist’s audience learns nothing of value, and creationism gets a signal boost.
The idea that any given idea is worth debating is simply wrong. It assumes two things that are both patently false.
First, it assumes that any given debate can be productive. This is false. If someone with an honest interest in the truth debates a liar with an interest in propaganda, the result is often a complete disaster. Particularly if the person with an honest interest in debate isn’t aware that their opponent is a dishonest propagandist - and if they were aware of that, why would they agree to the debate in the first place (here’s looking at you, Bill Nye)? And even if the party portraying the blatantly false ideas is coming at it honestly and earnestly, the debate still inherently sends the message that these are two ideas that are both similarly worthy of consideration. It implies that there is a debate worth having. Often, this simply isn’t the case, and this elevates ideas that are crap. Some ideas are just wrong, and the people who hold those ideas should not be debated, as debate implies that the idea is worthy of consideration. They should instead be educated. As Richard Dawkins put it when asked why he doesn’t debate creationists, “That’d look great on your CV, not so good on mine.”
Secondly, it assumes that in any given debate, the party with the truth on their side wins. This is, again, patently false. Go back and watch some of Duane Gish’s old debates. The man’s ideas are incredibly stupid and wrong, and we know that they are stupid and wrong. But the crowd doesn’t know that, and while Gish is able to throw out dozens of individual claims, all of which seem compelling, within the span of a few minutes, debunking those nonsense claims takes far longer than his opponent has. Gish came away from a lot of those debates looking like he won, because he was willing and able to lie, and calling him on his lies is a difficult thing to do within the format. This despite the fact that the position he was defending was that the earth was 6,000 years old and there was a worldwide flood within the last 5,000 years, with every species of animal on the planet repopulating from a mere two individuals.
Some ideas are not worthy of serious debate in a modern society. And of course, I have to question the reasoning of anyone who honestly believes that someone like, say, Milo Yiannopolous or Rush Limbaugh or Ken Ham is actually interested in an honest, open debate.