It is quite remarkable that in our 21st century world, creationists can, without embarrassment, solicit debate based on simplistic superstition in a public forum.
Within the mainstream community of earth and biological scientists the debates around evolution and the age of the earth are focussed on the fine scientific detail, superseding which is an overwhelming acceptance of the fundamental principles. However, when creationists say they reject aspects of the science what they are actually doing is rejecting science itself, which of course is very unscientific. Therefore any debate on particular points of science with creationists is null and void from the onset.
For example a debate about whether all life originated from that which was put in pairs on a boat is not a debate in earth and biological science, for those sciences have developed to such a degree that such a concept is an absurdity, and no meaningful debate can exist. Rather, it is a debate about the ignorance and fallibility of the human mind more related to the science of psychology. So even when creationists reject science there is still a science for that. Such is the scientific world we live in.
Creationists base all their reasoning on a few unscientific historical documents written in times before the development of the enormity of science that exists in the world today. Take a look around you. Everything is subject to the incredibly vast science which we use to continually develop, improve and understand our world.
In my opinion it is a failure of science that it has not yet been able to communicate the most basic paradigm of universal acceptance of principle to all of the so-called “intelligent” species. Giving credibility to creationists by debating within their strategy to “attack the straw man” only assists to prolong their existence.
