Reasonable and reasonably intelligent people should not debate with creationists.

Let me first start off by saying that The Skeptic and I are in complete understanding of what the resolution is and what our definitions are. However there does appear to be some confusion evidenced by some of the comments people have posted. People like Francis Collins, Kenneth Miller, or Alister Mcgrath are not "creationists" even though they do think God created the universe. A creationist or as there better known "young earth creationists" are people that think all animals were created in their original forms by God. I know enough about Christianity to understand the diversity of thought on this issue. So now that that's out of the way lets hop into the real debate. As I understand it you seem to be fixated on the idea that we should debate with creationists for the following reasons. - Not debating with creationists could potentially be risky - It helps the one who debates with a creationist to know more about evolution/Big Bang - It can change the creationist's mind - Others can read the debate and hopefully be influenced by the evolutionist (if they debated well, which only comes by practice! - Debating with creationists can be "fun" ====== Case Pro ====== Your analysis of our situation, at least to me, seems wildly inaccurate. The notion that creationists would just become ascendant if we stopped debating them is unsubstantiated and the product of mere speculation. To my knowledge there are no serious debates in universities on whether or not Elvis is still alive. As it turns out whenever anyone expresses his or her belief that Elvis is still alive at a lecture, on a first date, or a job interview that person immediately gets shunned to the fringes of society. There need not be formal debate on the death of Elvis for this to occur. The only thing we need to do to put creationists in their proper place is to talk about evidence, science, reason, common sense and nonsense. I harbor no fears about whether creationism will become ascendant if we stopped debating creationists. However I am concerned about our educational system. Many biology teachers never even mention evolution because of the religious lunacy of their students and their student's parents. This could be resolved if we were to simply renew our commitment to science as a nation. http://www.sciencedaily.com... If we choose to refine our own skill as debaters or proponents of science we need not debate with creationists or other rabble to accomplish this goal. We can talk to them in private or in public without putting their absurd beliefs on the pedestal of debate. We can also refine our skills by debating with other biologists. Either of these two options does not carry with it the heavy burden of legitimizing creationist propaganda. There is so much still unknown about our universe and there are sill so many interesting debates that haven't actually been resolved. Given that this is our condition it strikes me as odd that we should debate with people that have shown themselves to be incompetent over and over again. Why anyone would wish to debate literally pre Iron Age myths about the universe is beyond me. The first problem we have is that our educational system and science curriculum aren't as robust as they could be. The second problem we have is that many things in science are deeply counterintuitive. Relativity, quantum mechanics, and evolution are three prime examples. When we as a species were emerging on the planes of the African savanna we had not evolved to contemplate what a million years would be like. And yet in order to understand natural selection we are required to grasp not only a million years but also billions of years. In order for us to understand these principles it requires that we have a fairly extensive understanding of science and the scientific process. This understanding is exceptionally difficult to translate successfully in a debate. Consequentially most creationists will not be fully capable of appreciating a proper critique of their superstition. Debating with a creationist on evolution is almost as futile as debating with a 5 year old on the principles of quantum mechanics. Sure there may be one or two child prodigies that are capable of understanding but more often than not such arguments will fall upon deaf ears. I suppose its true that we may change some people's minds about creationism via debate but I don't think this is a strong contention. We could also accomplish this by advocating for reason generally. There are certain species of ignorance that cant stand up to the light of reason. If we were to shine a spotlight on the Bible or the Koran or Roswell conspiracy theories these ideas couldn't stand up. This is a far less odious and more reasonable alternative. Your last major argument revolves around the utility claim that it can be fun to debate with creationists. I don't doubt that this is true but I think we should also put into perspective what is at stake when we choose to have "fun" for whatever reason. The fun we may be having with creationists still serves as a public relations victory for them. And as I have said earlier it legitimizes their position. I watched a lecture Richard Dawkins gave at a University not that long ago. He said that he was actually offered 10,000 dollars to debate with Kirk Cameron and his little sidekick buddy. In case you didn't know Kirk Cameron is a creationist. I thought his reason for declining was pretty funny. He issued a statement to their office saying that he was too busy debating whether or not the Earth is flat. All the best, Freeman