I can't believe that this is considered a debate in the US. I am not a biologist but I am a physicist. I haven't watched all of the debate but the creationist astronomer didn't mention that he believes the earth is 6000 years old and the universe was created in 6 days. If he did he would discredit all of what he was so snarkily proud he accomplished as an astronomer. A simple biology text book is enough to get you thinking and you don't need to be a phd in genetics to comprehend evolution, unless you don't want to. Paleontological/archaeological findings, fossils, carbon dating, DNA decoding that shows the genetic inheritance we share with other primates or even different species should be enough of scientific evidence to persuade people. Being skeptical is a positive quality that helps in understanding rather than just accepting information. Being provided with overwhelming evidence and choosing to ignore it is having cognitive dissonance. A scientific theory, as somebody else mentioned, is not a constant and can be evolved. What people don't understand is that a scientific theory becomes accepted when it is supported by facts, experiments and observations. It is a model that can evolve when there is something else than can provide a better answer or if it can't explain the phenomena observed anymore. A fine example in physics is Newtonian and quantum mechanics. Newtonian mechanics can't explain the molecular and atomic scale well so quantum mechanics was invented and fine tuned. This involved a lot of math, a lot of thought, a lot of experiments to prove or disprove it. The argument that if I don't see it I won't believe is laughable at best. In this regard most modern astronomy and astrophysics can be disproved since we don't actually 'see' all the results. Are elements created in the nuclear fusion inside stars? No because we can't actually see it. Do electrons actually exist? No because we can't actually see them and we can only have a probability of their position and speed. The main problem with communicating these scientific facts in layman's terms to people not being experts, it means that they have to have a certain basic level of scientific knowledge/understanding, see high school level. Most people I know (that have finished high school) have a level of understanding of grade school. A big part of them have a level of acceptance as a 2 year old. Try communicating logical arguments to these people. Honey maybe the best way to catch flies but for my sanity I prefer to not waste honey on flies that is more partial to shit.