A while ago I read an dutch article that was emphasizing that the evolution-creation debate should focus on the broad lines that focus on the whole body of the evolution theory.
As example is the pepper moth taken, which was for a long time a favorite example of creationists to demonstrate that they have the truth on their side.
The article said that the debate should be centered around the broad issues. I think the broad lines are more or less, the philosophical basis of the evolution theory in relation to creationism. Second, also the foundations of the evolution theory like common descent, evolution from microbe to humans, and more.
Creationist call the peppered moth evidence for the non-existence of evolution, and evolutionist demonstrate that because of the peppered moth evolution is true. Much is written about it, and time and time again this does not result into any progress in the debate.
More or less the evolution-creation debate is trench warfare in which one side shoots, and the other side ducks. Then the opposing side shoots and the other sides ducks again. Really, there is most of the time no confrontation. Even this was illustrated in the discussion that was below the article in dutch. People from both sides shoot one liners at each other.
I have to admit that it is difficult to reconcile your differences and to listen to each-other. Some people or scientists do that in a real good way. But as in a proper marriage, differences should sometimes be set aside to get a real conservation going.
The article says that one liners are not useful in the evolution-creation debate. I agree. This shooting and attacking on the person does not show any progress at all. In fact, when people are looking for answers to important issues it is extremely difficult to get them. Between all the noise, no real question can be posed without attack and counterattack. Again, it is a trench warfare.
Another point the article makes is that in the debate people should not focus on the details. The little details are not that important. In one way I agree. People need to distinguish between the broad issues at hand and the details that come with them.
But as I illustrated in my last post, I think that focusing on the details is extremely important. If creationists want to overthrow the paradigma of the evolution theory, they need to break down the cornerstones, the foundation pieces, of the evolution theory. In my opinion that starts with the details. A house is not broken down easy, you start with the roof and go down to the ground.
At the same time, as the article also says, creationists need to think of a proper scientific theory that has the explanatory power of the evolution theory. And that is the real problem. Breaking down is easy, but building up is extremely difficult. You need engineers for that. For building scientific theories you need scientists, and creation scientists are vastly outnumbered.
Building a house goes also brick for brick, so piece by piece. In my previous post I said that creationism in the current state is pseudoscience. A house is not a house without a roof. We need to focus on the details to build a sound scientific creationist theory.