My favorite riot by evolutionist is when they say they won't debate with a creationist because they only debate scientists, and a creationist cannot be a scientist.
Talk about flawed logic based on one's own definition of terms to end debate. Evolutionists consistently use this kind of tomfoolery to avoid the real discussion or debate.
Can you post a link to some evolutionist who said that?
As Philip Johnson points out this battle is first and foremost a battle for the definitions of what is "science." If a secular atheist can define science on his materialistic terms, then the outcome of any discussion with a "creationist" is pre-determined. So why bother?
Well honestly, I happen to believe there is a lot of misinformation on both sides. You cite a "Catch 22" from the secular evolutionist community for sure, but some creationists put up theology as science, using their limited apprehension of Genesis texts to rule out scientific evidence as discovered.
At the heart of the debate seems to be a lot of false claims by the evolution teachers. The biggest false claim being presented as "science" is that we can construct of decent scenario for the origin of life, that it has been done. It hasn't and it can't!!!
Life alone gives birth to life! That's a fair analysis.
Those on FR that I've talked with know that evolution does not solve the origins of life.
The rejection of ID as an explanation of the origin of life cannot be addressed by "evolutionists."
Secondly, the idea that the Genesis account of our origins, six days of work for God and a day of rest, should be taught as part of a science curriculum is also very much clouding this debate. I don't believe Genesis should be used in a science class.
(For the record I a method-questioning creationist)