In fact, the National Center for Science Education, whose specific function is to monitor and oppose activities of creationists, recommends that evolutionists should always decline invitations to debate creationists, acknowledging that they will probably lose the debate.[/b]
Please cite a reference for the National Centre for Science Education saying that they acknowledge they will "probably lose the debate", or have the decency to withdraw, maybe with an apology if you have any integrity.
Do you know the reasons why real scientists don't 'debate' creationists?
There are three main ones:
Firstly, creationists always indulge in the Gish Gallop, which is the dishonest tactic of swamping the audience with 100 claims at once, all of them ridiculous, but leaving no opponent with the time needed to address more than a few of the points in the depth required to explain why they are ridiculous (this could be a sense in which the National Centre for Science Education might mean they will "lose" a debate) and;
Secondly, as Richard Dawkins puts it, the 'debate' will look better on the creationist's CV than it will look on his: creationists are always looking for real scientists to 'debate' so their crackpot fantasies can bask in the reflected glow of real science, even though the oxygen of publicity is completely undeserved, and that is because:
Thirdly, there is no legitimate debate to be had. There is no valid creationist claim. They have all been refuted entirely.
If you would like to come up with a single example of an exclusively creationist truth claim that has not been decisively refuted, please tell us what it is.
And we can refute it for you here and now.
But don't come up with 100 at once. That's just dishonest.
Stuart
