Re: You haven't been able to provide any recent (read: in the last two decades) examples of any of the people you named debating evolution with creationists in a formal setting.

Your claim about my actions is inaccurate - and I expect it is because you need to familiarize yourself with the top of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

If you want more evidence, try this:

"Creationism vs. Humanism: Christopher Hitchens vs. Jay Richards"

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2rp_VB7MCE

This guy was formally debated last month - he's an evangelical Christian who believes in the virgin birth, immaculate conception, resurrection, the holy trinity, god's covenant with the jews, a designed universe - and is from the Discovery Institute. A big enough nitwit for you?

Re: Your initial comment was that creationists don't need to debate students since they can debate all these famous atheist science writers.

No it wasn't. What I actually said was:

"Creationists don't have to debate college students - they have Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christoper Hitchens, Sam Harris, P Z Myers, Robert Wright - who all seem quite prepared to stoop down to their level as part of some kind of "gutter outreach" program."

I didn't say the "stooping" was done via formal debates. That was an inference on your part. My list was of people who had recently bothered to write whole books on the subject - plus P Z Myers - who also apparently spends an enormous amount of time on the issue.

I don't really see why you don't get it: EY says creationists can debate college students. TT points out that they are already getting plenty of attention - as a result of all the TLC lavished on them by the "new atheists". They appear on atheist documentaries, interview atheists on their documentaries, and generally bathe in the resulting media circus. There are many books written by learned men explaining why traditional religion is nonsense. Observers might be forgiven for thinking that there was some kind of real controversy here - instead of just a plague of ignorance and superstition.

Someone rather more sceptical might propose that these authors are interested in selling books - are inspired by The God Delusion's 1.5 million copies, and want in on the debate - irrespective of its scientific relevance - or lack thereof.

We have certainly have had a recent rush of top science writers towards the theistic gutter. I preferred it when they were talking about science. Maybe the sheer number of people in the gutter mean it is an interesting place to go. However, from my perspective, engaging with the theists gives them undeserved credibility, and effectively takes science writers out of circulation - by getting them to deal with mindless drivel all day.

In education, the most conventional structure is a ladder, with people teaching those a bit below them. Here we see those at the top reaching down to teach those at the bottom. Anyone can teach those at the bottom - it's easy. The problem with those at the top doing it is it takes them away from their regular roles - at the top is important - it's the leading edge, where progress happens.

If this were a plot by theists to take the science enthusiasts out of their usual orbits - from where they could teach and inspire the brightest of the next generation - I would have to say it is going well.