Reasonable and reasonably intelligent people should not debate with creationists.

Yes, there are anti-creationists who are also religious. I am fully aware of that, and I apologize if my comments hinted that I didn't believe so. I simply used creationism in a broad term, and sometimes jump a little too far. However, this shouldn't be a concern since our focus is elsewhere - of whether or not debating with creationists is justified. Since my opponent has so kindly listed my argument, I will respond to his counterarguments in the same linear pattern: ==================== Not debating with creationists could potentially be risky ==================== Just because there aren't any serious debates on Creationism in universities doesn't mean Creationism doesn't spread - these two contentions are entirely seperate. I agree that creationism is intellectual folly, but this doesn't mean we should simply ignore it. To do so would be intellectually tyranny. If someone were to confront me and tell me that they believe Elvis exists, then I'll gladly entertain their thought! I'd engage them in a debate right on the spot, and ask for their reasons why. To simply bat one's eyes and ignore them is counteractive to an intellectual community. Creationism is spreading fast through other mediums. It's true that it has barely any traction among universities, but in public highschools and lower, it's getting quite rampant. The vast majority of Americans don't believe in evolution[1] because they've been told the "truth" of creationism when they are young without having a substantive counterargument from the sides of evolution. Sure, they were taught evolution in high school biology, but most people take that less seriously. Unless someone confronts them, they'll simply ignore the textbooks as being wrong - an unfortunate but common mistake. ==================== It helps the one who debates with a creationist to know more about evolution/Big Bang ==================== First of all, it seems my opponent is working on a slightly different definition of "debate". I define it as any exchange of arguments on the validity of a given topic, while he seems to define it as the same but in a publicized and promoted manner. It's true that we can gain knowledge on evolution and the Big Bang via different methods. Talking with fellow evolutionists or professors can deeply increase our knowledge - but this isn't my point. While there are alternatives, the fact of the matter is that debating with creationists is educational itself. Even though debating with creationists may give some the impression that it's a legitimate position, we can simply point out during the debate that it isn't - and even list the amount of support. However, we shouldn't be afraid of people coming to believe that creationism is valid simply by virtue of it being debated. As I have argued, by effectively arguing against creationism infront of many people we can easily lower the amount of support. A great way to change the minds of future supporters is to change the educational system - I have no qualms about that. However, this isn't the focus of this debate. A change in the educational system of America and a concentrated effort to combat creationism in the public view can drastically lower the support for creationism. ==================== It can change the creationist's mind ==================== It's much easier to convince a creationist that evolution/Big Bang is true than convincing them that their religion is irrational. The latter is a MUCH harder job, and it will hardly gain as much traction and reception from the general public. It's kind of like politics - many times we just need to take some slow steps. I admit that part of my motive for debating creationists is to not only hope that they will stop with their foolish beliefs, but that this might influence their view on religion. In other words, debating with creationists could potentially open doubt in their hearts about religion and consequently lead them to deconvert! To straight up confront them about the legitimacy of their religion is a daunting task doomed to failure - people in general just aren't receptive to such criticisms. It's a much more plausible route to chip away at their auxillary beliefs, and reach our way to the core belief - namely the belief in the existence of God. ==================== Others can read the debate and hopefully be influenced by the evolutionist ==================== ==================== Debating with creationists can be "fun" ==================== I agree that this contention only works if it's shown that debating with creationists isn't harmful. Since this is the prime issue to be explicated, I'll leave this point on the sideline. Meaning that if my other arguments succeed, then this argument does so as well (since why would you prevent someone from engaging in an activity that is not only fun but not harmful?). ==================== Conclusion ==================== Debating with creationists is not only intellectually courteous, but it's beneficial. My arguments speak for themselves, I await my opponent's response. ---References--- 1. http://www.cbsnews.com...