Why would a high-status creationist have a motive to debate a low-status evolutionist?
And how would that play out? “The scientists aren’t really interested in listening to us, all they’ll send are college students.” Would you agree to debate Behe’s proofreader?
But for the purpose of actually getting scientists to hear out the crazy ideas (which are correct every once in a while (EDIT: ID/creationism not being one of those!)) without risking anything, I think this is a great idea.
Well then, how about sending a non-biology professor (math, literature[!], engineering, philosophy, etc) who merely has a side interest in biology? (and passes all of EY’s suggested vetting)
Then you’d be sending someone of equal status, with similar biology credentials (except maybe compared to Behe), and still have the same impressive effect of winning despite having limited experience in the field.
I don’t think it’s a great idea to imply to the public that scientists are equally competent in all fields. They already have that impression, no need to strengthen it...
It’s better than “the scientists aren’t really interested in listening to us, they won’t debate at all”, and I don’t think professional scientists should feel obliged to spend their time arguing about stuff that was debunked generations ago. And it’s something I would have been happy to volunteer for when I was a student. Proposal upvoted.
But for the purpose of actually getting scientists to hear out the crazy ideas (which are correct every once in a while (EDIT: ID/creationism not being one of those!)) without risking anything, I think this is a great idea.
However, the main problem is that ID people don’t really come up with new ideas. They just skim through the existing scientific literature, look for open, unresolved cases (discovered, asked by scientists) and point at them: “See, you can’t explain that yet..., therefore ID is true.”
Why would a high-status creationist have a motive to debate a low-status evolutionist?
And how would that play out? “The scientists aren’t really interested in listening to us, all they’ll send are college students.” Would you agree to debate Behe’s proofreader?
But for the purpose of actually getting scientists to hear out the crazy ideas (which are correct every once in a while (EDIT: ID/creationism not being one of those!)) without risking anything, I think this is a great idea.
I think it would be bad PR. Good science, bad PR.
Well then, how about sending a non-biology professor (math, literature[!], engineering, philosophy, etc) who merely has a side interest in biology? (and passes all of EY’s suggested vetting)
Then you’d be sending someone of equal status, with similar biology credentials (except maybe compared to Behe), and still have the same impressive effect of winning despite having limited experience in the field.
I don’t think it’s a great idea to imply to the public that scientists are equally competent in all fields. They already have that impression, no need to strengthen it...
Do they have the same impression regarding mathematicians and philosophers?
It’s better than “the scientists aren’t really interested in listening to us, they won’t debate at all”, and I don’t think professional scientists should feel obliged to spend their time arguing about stuff that was debunked generations ago. And it’s something I would have been happy to volunteer for when I was a student. Proposal upvoted.
However, the main problem is that ID people don’t really come up with new ideas. They just skim through the existing scientific literature, look for open, unresolved cases (discovered, asked by scientists) and point at them: “See, you can’t explain that yet..., therefore ID is true.”