I'm always open to a good debate. But when the proponent begins with a wrong premise entirely, how can you debate them? For example, I might argue that using vanilla and cream makes the best chocolate. You might point out that chocolate isn't made from vanilla and cream, but from cocoa beans, and so on and so forth. I might say "vanilla cream" is a "alternative" type of "white" chocolate. And that you are wrong for rejecting my belief in "white chocolate." But we all know that this premise is wrong, and so is not one we should waste time arguing against. What's peculiar to me, is that this simple logic escapes Creationists entirely.
At any rate, here is Eugenie Scott's presentation at the AAI 2009 Convention in Burbank, California. Scott is the head of the National Center for Science Education, which works to protect the teaching of Evolution in American schools. Visit http://ncse.com/
Also, check out this wonderful National Geographic article on Evolution (it's a little dated but thorough): HERE after the jump.