The great "debate" between creation and evolution only exists among laymen. Wishful thinkers praying for truth in creation argue against evolution because they lack a basal understanding of evolution theory. Those in the accredited scientific community know that evolution doesn't address the origins of life, but rather it's continuous development. They understand evolution as fact. When they research the causes of evolution, they are developing the theory behind it. In other words, scientists, biologists, and anthropologists of the World do not question whether life on Earth has evolved, but rather how it has evolved.
First off, let's all admit that what we'd like to believe is in no way contingent on "what is". Too often I come across the creationist argument that: "it's morally wrong to believe mankind evolved from apes". This is one of the most disturbing positions against evolution. Shamelessly pushing a line of thought that completely disregards reason in order to shield one's own emotional and spiritual sensibilities is nothing short of intellectual butchery.
Many creationists and "intelligent design" proponents claim evolution theory is full of inexplicable gaps. The human eye for example, is a staple argument against evolution. Creationists say the human eye is "irreducibly complex" (basically that means "ahh...I don't get it"). After all, how could these highly complicated mechanisms, the retina, the lens, and the iris, develop or evolve independent of each other? If evolution theory were true, each structure would need to have served some sort of function all on it's own in order to evolve into such a complicated mechanism...right?
Charles Darwin was somewhat stumped by this question and in his time it was indeed compelling. However, 150 years later science has made a host of discoveries that explain the development of the eye as it applies to evolution theory. We now have evidence of hundreds of gradations, or stages of development, that show the eye in it's simplest form, a light sensitive patch of cells, to it's most complex form (e.g. an eagles eye). We now know these separate structures can indeed develop independently of each other and we have the living models to prove it. So it's not only possible that the eye evolved through a series of gradations, it's viewed as the most probable explanation amongst those in the qualified scientific community.
Creationists often claim fossil records lack continuity and thus illustrate another "inexplicable gap" in evolution theory. This simply isn't true. The fact is, as more and more fossilized remains are discovered, the cause and vehicle for evolution becomes increasingly evident. More complete fossil records help us to better understand exactly how evolution occurs.
The "missing link mentality" is a logical fallacy implying evolution happens in huge jumps over short periods of time. The argument that anthropologists are lacking "the missing link" that would "prove" evolution theory doesn't acknowledge the discovery of over a dozen ancient hominids closely related to modern man and a host of decidedly transitional fossils. It ignores that genetic changes happen through gradations over immense periods of time. It confuses evolution with the theories that explain it. Most damning of all, it begs the question by assuming another "link" must be found in order to disprove Creation.
Many creationists include questions about the origin of life when arguing against evolution theory. This shows how little they understand. The theory of evolution does not address, does not relate, and is not concerned with the origin of life. These confused creationists are actually taking issue with abiogenesis, a hypothesis which offers the most likely explanation for the inception of life on Earth. It does not address biological diversity due to genetic changes over time.
Creationists won't accept the fact that creationism is not humored by those in the qualified scientific community so they've manufactured a "debate" between creationism and evolution that simply doesn't exist. Virtually all of the creationist arguments against evolution have been soundly dismissed, time and time again. Still, they ignore reason and the scientific method, continuing to nay-say as if they were never informed. Creationists will believe what they want, independent of reason and regardless of the facts, but there is no more of debate surrounding the validity of evolution than there is over the shape of The Earth. At least our creationist friends were reasonable enough to give that one up.