Debating Ken Ham would seem a no-brainer for Bill Nye, but darwinists suffer delusive overconfidence, especially given the way they control public media and can avoid public rebuttal. But now a debate with a creationist puts the overconfidence to at least a partial test, granting that this situation is suspicious. To debate a creationist is easy. Would Nye debate the ID folks, who can demolish darwinism in five minutes, minus the ID arguments.
I don’t know, but I suspect that creationists are aware of some of the strong arguments of the ID groups, but they tend to scramble their advantage with theological issues.
In any case, the darwin groups need to confront the limits of darwinism. It is not much of a test to argue with a creationist and claim victory.
On a number of core issues, Darwinists are almost beyond correction, and are open to demolition by the more sophisticated of the religious Darwin critics. That is very different from the creationist confusions over Biblical vs. scientific time-scales, etc…