A couple days after I posted saying Dawkins should challenge Craig to a debate on evolution, I found out that last month, Craig did his first debate against evolution against Francisco Ayala, contra my expectations that Craig would never agree to do such a debate.

I listened to the debate, and basically agreed with the moderator’s assessment: Ayala is a poor debater, and what’s more I suspect he was poorly prepared in that he wasn’t up to date on what anti-evolutionists have been saying. Unlike the moderator, though, this doesn’t make me thrilled about the idea of a philosophical defender of evolution, like Philip Kitcher or Elliott Sober, debating Craig. Too many critics of creationism/ID get into the trap of thinking that if they just get a few simple arguments down, they can get away with not having really thorough knowledge of the scientific issues.

This actually makes me more enthusiastic about the idea of Dawkins challenging Craig to a debate: Craig has memorized everything that people like Dembski and Behe have been saying lately, but he would still easily loose to anyone who’s followed them and know what mainstream scientists have said in response to them. I think with The Greatest Show on Earth, Dawkins has shown he has the mastery of the issues to debate Craig. I would say the same about Jerry Coyne and Why Evolution is True, or PZ Myers and his online writings on evolution. As a bonus, all three of these writers wouldn’t waste their time trying to make poorly-thought out theological points.

The fact that Craig has done such a debate though, means my idea of Dawkins throwing down the challenge knowing it wouldn’t be accepted is out. Coyne, I think, also has a pretty strong no-debating creationists policy. Would PZ go for it? Here’s hoping.