I'm very skeptical of the value of TV debates. Why not just insist that any debates be conducted online, in text mode, in non-realtime? Then they can't claim that evilutionists refused to debate them, nobody has to go stand on stage under hot lights and time pressure in a situation where they have minimal access to informational resources (thus giving a huge advantage to Teh Stoopid), and there will be a nice searchable record of the discussion when it's over.

...which begs the observation that we have been debating creationists, continually, ever since they started poking their heads up; they just choose to ignore those past debates because of the inconvenient fact that they always lose.

So perhaps whenever they challenge someone to a debate, the appropriate response is "Sure! Send me your opening argument in writing, and I will respond similarly until one of us gives in. Anytime, anywhere." Do ya feel lucky, punk??

Here's what I think...

In-person debates are somewhat pointless, because someone can simply start lying their ass off and you won't be able to do the research in time to call them on it. Even if you know what they're saying is flat-out wrong, and you call them on it, your opponent can simply accuse you of being the one who has the facts wrong - and an audience that doesn't already know the truth won't have any way to tell the difference. The only kind of debates worth having are written debates.

For a creationist to publicly debate a college student is to admit that his or her status is roughly on par with that of a college student. Why would any creationist do that? And I'm sure they can come up with a better excuse than "I'm afraid to lose to a student."

Michael Behe seems to be a full professor. Has any professor ever formally debated a college student (excepting classroom instruction), in the history of academics?

The danger I see is that the college student will win on logic but lose on rhetoric; the public impression given may well be that the student lost. So the issue then becomes: who is to judge who won the debate?

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.

So I've turned on the tv to watch a debate on evolution and creationism on CNN (or Fox News). The creationists have sent an older, respectable-looking gentleman in a suit, bible in hand. The evolutionists have sent a scrappy-looking college kid in jeans, barely out of his diapers and studying something fancy-shmancy at the University of Liberal Professors, Berkeley.

A priori, whose side will I be on?

How many people will think: "Is this the best guy the evolutionists have to offer?"

FWIW, I've tested out what it's like to debate random people (on YouTube) while taking the ID side. Even when I got people who were obviously intelligent and well-versed in biology, I had exchanges like this:

"If you reject evolution, what's your alternate theory?"

"Ignorance."

"Ignorance isn't a theory!"

"Considering that it predicts the data equally well [I had claimed evolution doesn't actually imply what we see] and has a lower Kolmogorov complexity, it most certainly is a theory, if for no other reason that its superior... (read more)

Doesn't it kind of defeat the purpose though, when you have to apply nearly as much filtering to the potential science representatives as a PhD program does?

(Btw, a lot of your hedging about qualified debaters seems inspired by my misgivings about taking a random TA.)

I'm a first-year grad student, and I'd be more than happy to take down any ID'er that crosses my path while dressed in jeans.

Jeans are comfy.

EDIT: Oh. I don't have a biology degree. Nevermind then.

Do they really get that much mileage out of saying that they debated famous scientists? It's a nice rhetorical flourish, but what reason do we have to think it's a major driver of success?

Without debates, it is much easier for adherents of dogmatic philosophies to stay in an echo chamber of support.

Edit: just realized that the above comment by wedrifid gives pretty much a summary of mine.

Scientists are handicapped in these debates, whatever their status. Their goal is to convince the debate's audience using scientific facts and logic. The goal of the creationists, however, is to convince the audience by whatever means work best.

So they will lie, invent and suppress facts, avoid or ignore questions, use ad hominem attacks, and generally use every kind of psychological or rhetorical tactic they can. And they're quite good at this, so that only trained ... (read more)

Why do you think that someone will actually make this happen? Many sensible things do not happen because there is no party with the incentives to do it.

Find some bright ambitious young college student working toward a biology degree, someone who's read Pharyngula and the talk.origins FAQ.

I'm a first-year undergraduate at Grand Valley State University, and I am considering biology as a major. I could read both of those. What do you say?

Debates of this kind are an exercise in effectively employing rhetoric, not reason. Let them debate college students that we weren't expecting to actually think rationally anyway.

this would viscerally answer what the scientific community thinks of creationism

But is it good to viscerally express this opinion? Some people will get the scorn and react badly to it.

Creationists don't have to debate college students - they have Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christoper Hitchens, Sam Harris, P Z Myers, Robert Wright - who all seem quite prepared to stoop down to their level as part of some kind of "gutter outreach" program.