The creationists never want to have an actual debate on the evidence for evolutionary change-which is great-or the merits of their philosophy since it boils down to a metaphysical argument, not a scientific one.
It's fine to point out the shortcomings in a scientific theory, but when you actually have to posit a hypothesis that doesn't rest upon any tangible empirical evidence you find yourself in a bit of sticky wicket, don't you?
Untrue. YE Creationists used to routinely debate with evolutionist professors on university campuses, in fact they had one several years ago at the university where I got my graduate degree. This went on until the evolutionists realised that the creationists were thrashing them. Then, the evolutionists suddenly decided that they didn't want to debate creationists because "we don't want to give them any credibility".
==It’s fine to point out the shortcomings in a scientific theory
Not only is it fine, it’s an essential component of the scientific method—FALSIFICATION.