Science and religion go head to head in creation debate

I had all intentions of watching the creation debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham yesterday, but the combination of a Spanish paper and the YouTube page crashing my computer prevented me from watching it and thus covering it until now. I've since caught bits and pieces, and in addition to seeing other commentaries on it, I'd like to address a few things that I feel make this discussion worth having.

Regarding bias, I feel it's pretty obvious where I stand in this debate, between my explicit interest in science and my "not so explicit but potentially assumed" status as an atheist, but I will do my best to keep this as civil as possible because nothing can get done otherwise. Also, for simplicity's sake, I'll refer to the people on Nye's side as "evolutionists" and Ham's side as "creationists" because while Nye is a scientist, there are scientists who may not believe in evolution (which, admittedly, is a stretch, but for the sake of the argument).

1. Evolutionists are more willing to say "I don't know," and creationists need an explanation for everything. This was made apparent in this Buzzfeed article that was in my news feed, in which the author asked creationists at the debate to pose questions to the evolutionists. The lady in photo number 9 illustrates this point very well in her question, "If God did not create everything, then how did the first single-celled organism originate? By chance?" Evolutionists would say yes, and creationists would say that such an instance couldn't possibly happen, hence the position of God as creator of these organisms.
2. Evolutionists are more open to changing their outlook, and creationists are solid in their beliefs. Part of the scientific process is revisiting old hypotheses and changing them if outcomes or observations refute them; as such, scientists would be willing to accept another hypothesis were evidence to arise that disproved evolution, whereas no amount of evidence supporting evolution will change a creationist.
3. Only a minor thing, but the creationist side can't really claim persecution in education when the educational systems that teach creationism only look at the Christian story. Other beliefs are snubbed, as demonstrated by a quick Google search of "creation story."
   
   This seems to fit in with the bit of not changing what they think when other options are provided.
4. This is probably the most important, but science and religion aren't completely separate. I know people who are comfortable in their faith and still accept evolution as more or less fact, and even though the church system seems to be anti-science in some respect throughout the ages, some of the best science has come out of it. Take Mendelian genetics for example: without it, we wouldn't know how inheritance works, yet Gregor Mendel was a monk.

As always, I'm open for discussion. What are your thoughts on the debate, evolution, or creationism?