Should we debate creationists?

I recently took part in a debate on whether evolution is true against a well-known creationist YouTuber. How I did depends entirely on who you ask. If you ask his fans, I was totally destroyed; annihilated in a triumphal showcase that proved that evolution is definitely false. If you gauge success by convincing ideologues, then I also failed. If you gauge it on whether I remained calm and patient in a lions’ den, however, then I did pretty well. In the aftermath, I received dozens of messages from scientist friends, as well as others, all telling me the same two things: firstly, how well I did to stay calm, polite, and gentle against a lot of aggressive rhetoric, and secondly, that they could only watch for a short while as they found it so frustrating to watch.

After that experience, and given that confirmation bias tends to entrench ideologues in their prior beliefs when these debates happen, I now feel I have to ask the question as to whether it is even worth it to debate creationists, flat earthers, moon landing deniers—ideologues/conspiratory theorists in general—in the public arena.

The Case for Debating

• Most ideologues live entirely within echo chambers. They need to see their champions actually face resistance. The only way they might hear their bad ideas challenged and exposed for what they are is if they find themselves in a place where their favourite ‘thinkers’ are in dialogue with an opponent. These spaces are few and far between; debates may be the only opportunity to reach these people.

• Different styles work for different people. Some champions of science, such as Dave Farina, are very successful because they are direct, aggressive, and antagonistic. They call BS what it is. That style can shake people out of false and foolish beliefs, but it doesn’t work on everyone. Indeed, for some, it can make them more defensive, meaning they entrench themselves in their position all the more strongly. Other debunkers have success by being respectful, giving honour and grace to their opponent, and treating them like a human being who matters. This approach can reach certain people, but for others it confirms the legitimacy of their beliefs and makes them think their case is strong when it is not (if it is deserving of debate with a serious opponent, how can it not be legitimate, they might ask). During the debate I took part in, this approach made people believe their position had more credibility than it did and handed the initiative to my opponent to be more aggressive. Nevertheless, debate provides a chance to be heard and some will get through to the ideologues. Note that the aim of such debates is not really to convince your opponent, who will likely never be convinced, but to convince those watching.

• You can demonstrate, directly, how insane the beliefs of ideologues truly are. You will have time and space to make your case. It is a free shot. Ignoring pernicious beliefs and pretending they will go away never achieves anything.

The Case Against Debating

• It creates the illusion that there is actually a case to be made on the other side. Richard Dawkins, for example, refuses to engage creationists as he believes that giving them such a platform gives the appearance of there actually being two legitimate, equal sides to an argument. Bill Nye received much criticism for debating the creationist Ken Ham back in 2014 for this very reason. Why give the impression that there are two sides to the story when one is science and the other is pseudoscience?

• Likewise, it legitimises the opponent and can make you a trophy. The chances of your opponent seeing the light are near zero. Pride is too strong a drug. Therefore, you must be prepared in the aftermath of a debate for a million articles, reaction videos, debunking content, and claims of being DESTROYED to be made about you. The reality is that a scientist going against a non-scientist is not a fair fight and we legitimise the opponent and their case when we share a platform with them. Illusion and perception are often reality to those who cannot penetrate to the nuances of a discussion.

• Rhetoric and performance, not reason and evidence, often win debates. Debates are all too often style over substance. Chest thumping and shouting, monopolising the time, interrupting: all these create a sense of confidence that intoxicates an already biased crowd into believing their side has triumphed when they may in reality have fallen on their face in embarrassing fashion. Creationists, in particular, often ‘triumph’ against scientists, not because they are right but because they have become expert rhetoricians.

• Debates might win arguments at the expense of people. People need to be heard properly, and debates are not the forum for that. They are gladiatorial arenas, not genuine discussions.

All in all, it is a fine line to tread. Perhaps debates have a place in our discourse but should be left to YouTubers and influencers rather than scientists and academics who may risk giving the impression that the other side is legitimate.

Perhaps they do more harm than good and a different, more personal approach is needed. I remember when my stepfather went down the flat earth rabbit hole. I didn’t attack him; I talked to him over dinner, then invited him to hear an astronaut speak. Meeting the astronaut changed his mind. It was a slow process, but the result was permanent. However, there is no denying the effectiveness of those who are particularly skilled at unravelling pseudoscience in the arena.

I leave you to decide what the most effective strategy is. Different tools serve different purposes, and perhaps some approaches that reach the crowds can be well counterbalanced by those that reach the individual.