Is the debate "evolution vs. creationism" harmful for evolution?

[Marius]

The mere fact that the forefront of evolutionary scientists
The God Delusion
Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life
are having this debate seems to give creationism an equal footing on this dialogue and to offer the impression of it being a valid alternative to a well-established theory. This false dichotomy has been in existence since the formulation of the evolutionary theory although the burden of evidence has always been one side.
I believe it to be obvious that a debate in which one side constantly applies a double standard (i.e. you need evidence, but we don't) and tries to find gaps in the other's side argumentation for the sake of introducing something even more improbable than what they deny, is a debate between different logical categories (i.e. a scientific theory vs. a fictional account or opening a trial to convict Crime and Punishment's Raskolnikoff of murder)
This ongoing debate may give the false impression that the evolutionists are mainly preoccupied with exposing the fallacies of religion (a type of activity usually associated with journalism) rather than with evolution's scientific pursuit.
On the other hand this may show that the leading evolutionary thinkers such as Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Pinker and others are in this way "true scientists" because they care enough about what they believe to be true to devote precious time to fight against ignorance and bigotry and to enrich the lives of fellow humans.
Will this debate change the way we view the evolutionary theory in a positive or a negative way, if at all?

[Elliot]

I read on evolution a lot and find the arguments for Darwinism compelling. I do find intelligent design disturbing because no one explains how a designer would act in the natural world to implement the designs. However, many pathways in life are very complicated and it strains my imagination to see how they evolved. I would like for someone to explain these very complex pathways. Dawkins tackles this from a logic perspective but the explanations are not deep enough to satisfy my hunger for a complete explanation. Does anyone else struggle with this?

[John]

The very existence of such a "debate" is a demonstration of our evolutionary origins among the social primates. It isn't really a "debate;" it's a group of humans trying to comprehend how the world works, attacked by another group of humans claiming that all is magic, and that magic must triumph simply because said magic is described in certain Ancestral Books. As Ethan above says, different logical categories, but passing one another like trains in the night, on entirely different sets of rails.