The debate would turn around is creation science scientific
If Bill Nye has any sense, he will read up on the creationist arguments and tackle them on those. On the big questions debate the non creationists were able to give examples to the no information is added. Were able to give examples of transitions. In short they'd gone in knowing exactly what they were going to face and were brutally confident.
If Bill Nye goes in unprepared they'll eat him alive because scientific language is cautious and creation 'scientific' language is certainty.
I think that should be "allegedly" Peter. Or "was made to appear as being unable to answer". I forget what fast one the creationists pulled, but fast one it was.
Or quite possibly couldn't answer? I'm not too sure about Dawkins. When it comes to many things, like religion, he's way behind the real rest of the world. He still lives in his cosy comfortable past where catholic priests frighten and abuse small children (his comments that the hell stuff is worse than child abuse - well in certain cases maybe BUT it doesn't happen any more and but child abuse does, why not deal with witch burning whilst he's at it) and Muslim fanatics come from Saudi and have been raised blindly in their faith.
Whereas the real world has moved on and no RC parent or teacher would allow their children be given nightmares any more and expect religious education to be more about giving to charity, Francis is wittering on about thinking more of the poor than gayness and the sort of person who would go on about hell that would have been identified by psychological testing before entering the priesthood. Likewise most Muslim fundies here have been raised here, far from blindly and far from sheltered from non Islamic ideas and ideals and are often disaffected, disengaged young people looking for a cause. The murderers of Lee Rigby for example could hardly be called Muslims from birth. Dawkins goes on about ideas evolving or memes yet refuses to acknowledge that religion evolves as well. Talk about hypocrite.
He'd be far better served looking to the American foreign policy or even the EDL for examples of why Islamic bombers have become politicised rather than the koran. Social, educational and political reasons that is why. And thats just for starters on how stupid and ignorant he is, his head is as firmly in the sand and in the past as any creationist when it comes to reading papers before sounding off.
And no I haven't gone soft on either the RCC or Islam or religion. I'm just being realistic. And if he wanted to spread atheism he'd be far better served looking to what religion gives people and dealing with that rather than his constant pretence of intellectual superiority and his constant claims that you cannot be a scientist and a believer. Despite the pieces of evidence glaring him in the face.
Then there is the other piece of spin that he's a brilliant communicator. But I've struggled to finish any of his books. The God Delusion was skimmable - and I agreed with much of it. The ancestors tale was dull and repetetive, as are every other book of his I've tried to plough thru. He spent about 20 pages just telling us he would be working backward and had come up with a new name to describe that. As if all his readers were as thick as ditch water. Maybe I'm just too thick or too sleepy for his style but I've read lots of other popular scientific books without any problem at all. Like Brian Cox, Simon Singh, Jerry Coyne, Alice Roberts and our own Paul. No giving up after chapter three or falling asleep in the middle of any of them.
But I've always bought into his other piece of propaganda that he's a brilliant scientist in his field. Is he? Or is he just average? His books always cite others like Miller but rarely his own work. So is he as good as his spin suggests? I'm finding it difficult to accept he might be given that he seems to be such an arrogant blithering idiot in so many other areas. But perhaps he is.
Anyway I'm beginning to wonder if maybe he really couldn't answer it, cos on the Big Question both atheist Steve Jones and his Christian paleontologist peer could and did. They also could and did give examples. It was fairly simple for them to eviscerate the creationist nonsense like no new information and information per se. It was not rocket science at all and it has been covered by the anti creationist sites ad nauseum.
Anyway good luck to Bill Nye. If he knows their arguments well he'll eviscerate them. Tho I guess whatever he says will be carefully edited.