Ringo writes:
Essentially, it's a fight where only the audience counts. If an evo destroys a creo argument with Ph.D. level science, the audience has to be able to understand it or nothing is accomplished. It doesn't matter if the creo understands it.
Only the audience wins or loses.
I completely agree. I've watched many many many debates between Ph.D. people and preachers who earned their degrees in fundy-land. What you said is essentially what I've observed.
For example, there was one particular debate between an astronomer and a creationist that I went to. I can't remember their names. The topic was something like scientific evidence that supports old earth/young earth... or something like that. Since I have a background in physics, I knew exactly what the astronomer was talking about. The problem I saw with the astronomer's presentation was that most of his stuff were Ph.D. stuff, and most of the audience members came on buses from local parishes. He presented graphs and mathematical equations that even I had trouble keeping up with. Essentially, I got the feeling that he tried to treat the debate like a college mini-semester class... too much information in too little time. He concluded his presentation and hardly anyone applauded because most people didn't understand a thing he said.
On the other hand, the creationist presented typical fundy bullshits and he got big applauses every other minute. He was also a much better public speaker than the astronomer.
It's been my belief for a while that such public debate actually hurts our cause more than helps it. First of all, us science nerds don't organize buses to take people to the debate, they do... with whole congregations. When it comes to information, they have the advantage because they can throw out any bullshit they want and get applauses while anything we present that is more complicated than 2+2=4 will only result in silence of confusion among the audience. Heck, they can even lie outright and there's nothing we can do about it.
Take the 2nd law of thermodynamics argument from the creo side, for example. All they have to say is the 2nd law states that chaos will only increase while order will only decrease, disproving evolution, which states that simpler organisms "evolve" into more complex organism over time. Any child can hear that statement, understand it, and agree with it wholeheartedly. I honestly can't refute that statement without giving a whole lecture on the laws of thermodynamics, how a cell make uses of these laws, and how evolution doesn't state that simple organisms "evolve" into more complex organisms over time. But in a public debate, one is only given like 2 minutes to refute that statement. How the flying fuck can one make it clear to the audience that that statement is an outright strawman, not to mention a lie?
Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
™ Version 4.2