It depends on the format.
Debating a creationist on stage or on a media format constrained by time and in front of an audience is pretty foolish, imo. The amount of information required to refute particular assertions runs into the basic limit of many audiences attention span and when confronted with the "gish gallop" littany of false assertions and falacies, the scientist is running against time.
The big difference between this kind of debate and a "forum" debate is we can have debates run into the months or even years. This provides plenty of time for positions to be strengthened or changed, research to be described, and data to be explained. While we are ostensibly speaking to the individual "creationist" we are replying to, it is practically the audience, the lurkers, who we are really speaking to. I think of it as speaking to a class answering questions to the best of my ability. I expect that no matter how eloquent or careful I am with my explanations, not everyone will absorb the material and understand it, but there will be others that do. Someone out there, it is hoped, learns something. I know I do (I am not perfect by any means). Showmanship and glibness aside, this would seem to me to allow a greater degree of insight and understanding, than a 1 hour "debate" on TV or radio.
*showmanship...some of the best teachers are good showman.
As far as Glibness is concerned, we do have moderators who frown on such behavior. While not perfect I wouldn't discount these debates purely because of the glibness that posters fall back upon.
Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
