...if certain evolutionists would take the responsibility Iw ould like them to take, then the debates would be as unbiased as can be.
I think you are forgetting about Ken Miller (of Dover trial fame) and Eugenie Scott (of the National Institute for Science Education), as well as other evolutionary biologists who debate extensively in various forums.
I would vastly prefer to see these biologists in the lab doing productive work and leave the creationists to their delusions. A major reason that debates between evolutionists and creationists seem to often be very one sided in favor of the creationists is that these are contests between unequals; I'm not referring to unequal in the quality of the debater or the logic of their arguments but in the simplicity of their positions. The bible presents a theory - actually two different theories - of creation (in narrative form) that is stated in one-half a page. Contrast this with Stephan J. Goulds "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" which is almost 1500 pages long, and the preface of which spends a few pages apologizing for the topics not covered. A public debate in which the presenter gets 45 minutes to prove his case and 15 minutes for rebuttal is a preposterous venue to argue about evolution (or superstring theory or algebraic topology or ...). The most the defender of evolution can hope to do is present some recent interesting evidence that supports the theory, such as Tiktaalic rosea or Ambulocetus or some other very narrow topic in evolution. This almost forces the Gish gallop.
Unlike many of the posters on this forum, I am not horrified, or even dismayed, by the prevalence of creationists and evolution deniers in the US. Public funding for science in this country is quite high and is increasing at a steady pace. While half the country seems to be anti-science, or at least anti-evolution in their responses to various polls, they still gobble up ipods and other products of science avariciously, and when they or a family member has a medical crisis or severe accident, they tell the ambulance driver to take them to the nearest hospital for emergency medical treatment, not to the nearest church for emergency prayer treatment.
I am not even overly concerned about the teach of "alternative views" of biological origins in the public schools. There are still a majority of schools that understand the difference between real science and nonsense. Biology departments and companies are not having any trouble finding qualified new-hires.
In fact, I think it would be a really neat experiment if we were to take one state, Mississippi for example, and teach only biblical creationism in the public high schools, and another state and teach only flat earth geocentrism. We could then study these kids reactions when they get to colleges (for those of them that go to real colleges and universities) and are exposed to modern science. I think the real threat posed by bible literalist teachings to youngsters is not to the progression of science in this country, but to the continued viability of religious institutions. This is borne out by the large percentage of students raised in evangelical environments who go on to college and wind up rejecting their religious upbringings.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
