When it comes to discussing evolution with creationists, philosopher Helen De Cruz is doubtful that debate can be effective. She ponders communication strategies for empiricists:
[J]ust presenting people with arguments and evidence will not make them change their minds. This has been demonstrated for several issues where opinions are highly polarized, such as climate change, gun control and vaccines. What happens instead is that people think that the person in the debate who defended their viewpoint has won the debate. So if anything, debates entrench and further polarize beliefs.
But, picking up on De Cruz’s points, Tania Lombrozo worries about abandoning debate altogether:
One approach is to tackle issues about the bases for belief head on. Besides discussing the evidence for evolution, for example, you might talk about the nature of evidence and how science works. In fact, in a 2008 study, my collaborators and I found that understanding something about how science works, and in particular the status of scientific theories, was correlated with accepting evolution. This suggests — but only suggests — that conversations at this higher level might be a more effective way to bridge the divide between creationists and evolutionists.
She also acknowledges the limits of this strategy. Another reason she doesn’t want to give up on debate is because “alternatives to rational debate seem deeply problematic”:
The project of changing minds, or even trying to converge on substantive common ground, becomes one of indirect persuasion or manipulation. If evidence and argument won’t do it, how about appeals to authority? Indoctrination? Secret ? Subliminal priming? Not in my democracy, please.
The Dish 