Well then, how about sending a non-biology professor (math, literature[!], engineering, philosophy, etc) who merely has a side interest in biology? (and passes all of EY’s suggested vetting)
Then you’d be sending someone of equal status, with similar biology credentials (except maybe compared to Behe), and still have the same impressive effect of winning despite having limited experience in the field.
I don’t think it’s a great idea to imply to the public that scientists are equally competent in all fields. They already have that impression, no need to strengthen it...
Well then, how about sending a non-biology professor (math, literature[!], engineering, philosophy, etc) who merely has a side interest in biology? (and passes all of EY’s suggested vetting)
Then you’d be sending someone of equal status, with similar biology credentials (except maybe compared to Behe), and still have the same impressive effect of winning despite having limited experience in the field.
I don’t think it’s a great idea to imply to the public that scientists are equally competent in all fields. They already have that impression, no need to strengthen it...
Do they have the same impression regarding mathematicians and philosophers?