One thing I hate most about these debates is how theists try to transfer the burden of proof upon the atheist or evolution proponent. The fact of the matter is that theists refuse to accept the very real, empirical, and objective evidence in support of evolution. No matter what level of education or how many degrees they may hold in theology, apologetics, or philosophy they always resort to a god of the gaps argument. Some present it more eloquently than other but when one is familiar with this argument you can pretty much spot it a mile away no matter how much you try to disguise it.
God of the gaps argument
- There is a gap in scientific knowledge.
- Therefore, the things in this gap are best explained as acts of God.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that arguing against creationism in a public forum is an exercise in futility. It will never convince a theist to change his beliefs because of the fact that when a theist exposes the gaps in scientific knowledge and the evolutionists replies that we don't know the exact process of such and such a thing in the eyes of the theists the creationists has won. God did it in the eyes of the theists answers all the mysteries and gaps in the sciences. One of the most learned individuals about this matter believe it or not was Adolf Hitler:
"It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge."
"I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few."
I think it's almost insulting that a scientist or someone with scientific training has to defend his views against people who are either not scientifically trained or are scientifically trained but are victims of confirmation bias and to compartmentalize their faith from their profession. To date it is a known fact that you cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.. But logically the burden of proof is on the claimant defending the position that God exists not the other way around.
It's embarrassing that professional scientists, philosophers,etc. are continually being sucked into these pointless exchanges with theists who in my opinion don't even deserve to be on the same podium with them. In fact arguing for creationism makes no sense at all because the theists has yet to prove both empirically and objectively that this god they worship exists. Even if they could prove someday that "God did it" they still have to prove which god did it. Was it the god of the deist, or one of the other thousand or so gods that man has created for himself?
In conclusion and to sum this post up I believe that these debates are a farce and a circus side show at best. I don't think theists will gain anything from these exchanges and evolutionists have nothing to learn from the creationist point of view. The best way to counter creationism is to keep lecturing about it and writing about the subject exposing its many weaknesses and its improbability reasonably.