The Bill Nye/ Ken Ham debate will be live on

[HereSince1628]

11. Yes. Everyone of these sorts of debates I've witnessed since the 70's is a circus

They are always played outside of the rules of scientific evidence and scientific reasoning and thereby enable a number of forensic tropes.

Conjecture about things like a "cosmic designer" are argued as primae faciae acceptable competing alternatives, rather than both outside the realm of science and unsubstantiated by empirical evidence. The very existence of such conjectures within such false/scientifically unacceptable dichotomies becomes "proof" that alternate "reasonable" ideas exist and thereby that evolutionary theory has a viable competitor. The title of the upcoming debate indicates that this will be one of its major themes.

At the same time, variation in scientific interpretation in response to changing evidence about such things as the possible course of chemical/molecular evolution leading to protobionts is presented as proof of dissent and disagreement that discredits evolution on the whole within science.

Toss in a few anecdotes about error/biases of scientists (Haeckel's drawing of comparative ontogeny is popular here) or seemingly incongruous phenomena (older geologic strata on top of younger strata is a favorite) as general discrediting of all science and you have a 60-90 minute circus.

These debates never change anyone's mind.

Yet, post event polls of the masses who witness the event will show that within the witnesses there remains disagreement This will be proclaimed as evidence of decisive victory by the side arguing that creation remains a viable alternative.