Runner,

The reason that real scientists won't debate with creationists is that the creationists are dishonest cherry pickers, playing to their crowd and incapable of conducting their side. They have so far had nothing to offer. Much like you. Creationism is beneath contempt. You have not yet expressed a view on the topic not disposed of in primary schoolyard conversation, hence you are not getting answers of higher level. Do try harder.

Get an education first, I would suggest you desperately need one. I have discussed these topics with ministers with higher degrees, higher degree theology students etc. I had much opportunity as in the days when I studied, all the dormitory colleges were church run and still had a large subpopulation of theological students. All held your style of literalism as an embarrasment at best, an undermining of thoughtful religion as typical, and as a downright perversion in several cases. Perhaps of interest, I have in fact heard some very good though flawed arguments for a form of remote deity, but I'm not giving you clues. You have to catch up on your own time.

Since we are keeping it down to your level:
Who created your toy god? You hold that something as complex as the universe implies a creator. Clearly you regard this as an extrauniversal rule. Therefore: let us consider who would create such a paranoid child as you claim to worship?

Rusty

For those of us who feel innately that that we can cleave closer to the truth by a process of feisty debate, the Atheist's position in declining to cross swords with Creationists at first feels like a let down. However, now I’ve heard it, their justification for this position makes sense. Legitimate medical conferences would rightfully scoff any demand made to debate homeopathists. Astronomers, similarly would laugh astrologers out of the room if they showed up at an astronomer's gathering. Creationists want desperately to play with the "big boys", not to up-end scientific sacred cows, but simply to promote the perception that their views are at least as worthy of consideration. This gives them the toe-hold (and the cash) from credulous Church audiences and on U.S School boards. Dawkins has made this point clearly, which Viljoen only alludes to but does not articulate at all well. The practitioners of Creationism, especially hacks like Wieland quoted in the article, peddle completely risible arguments (at least concerning their “Science” of Creationism) and deserve the scorn and dismissive attitude they have encountered.

I like Theodore Dalrymple’s observation that we have inverted the meaning of “discrimination” in this age. Discrimination is currently a universal pejorative. It used to imply an ability to judge wisely good things from bad. If the Creationists say they are being discriminated against, then they should realise it is because sensible debate has moved beyond them permanently. We no longer sacrifice to an angry God, and we no longer burn witches. So to, we no longer (if indeed, we ever did) believe there were vegetarian T-Rexes in the garden of Eden, and it’s entirely appropriate to laugh, loudly, at people who do.

oh dear...
Should Astronomers debate astrologers?
Should Zoologists debate the existence of unicorns?
To debate someone who holds to such silly ideas to be true, merely adds fuels to their fire. It would give them what they crave, to be taken seriously. Mainstream religions don't take creationism seriously why should scientist?
However the issues can be best answered by..
When you argue with a fool, you end up looking like one yourself, and Carl has had a lot more practice at being one then Dawkins or PZ.

As an AGW 'alarmist', I would like to thank Runner for being a sceptic.
I too, see common ground between the 2 positions; sceptic and creationist.
It must take enormous faith to believe mere humankind could never change the wonderful creation that is our planetary environment.

I think Mark Twain's advice applies here:

"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

The reason these nutters are always demanding public debates is so they can drag their opponents down to their intellectual level. Exactly the same reasoning is behind the loopy Lord Monckton's desire to debate his scientific betters on AGW, and their refusal to engage.

"“Non-living molecules evolving into all life forms, including man, over millions of years. We find that a frankly bizarre proposition.”

Whereas the existence of an invisible all-powerful Sky Daddy who is everywhere, yet somehow completely undetectable, is completely obvious and lucid to all right-thinking people, correct?

This is the Argument From Personal Incredulity, and it has no evidential value whatsoever. If Carl Wieland finds currently-accepted scientific theories 'bizarre', that's his problem, not Dawkins'.