If the future of science is really at risk, then surely not debating evolution is folly.
Good grief, if we face total calamity by the end of the century, why in the world wouldn’t you debate the science?
As a systems architect, I’ve spent decades designing and implementing large and complex systems of information systems.
Does the “scientific consensus” mean that only scientists who follow the majority are entitled to have their say?
Remember Peter Ridd, the scientist who studied the Great Barrier Reef and spoke out against those who said it showed evidence of global warming?