Say what you want about the 'new atheist' movement but you have to agree that they've definitely changed the zeitgeist over the last couple of years. Their books and debates have sparked tons of discussions both in real life and on the internet. A lot of people have learned more about science, history and philosophy in attempts to 'arm' themselves for arguments just like this.
Even religious persons should be grateful that they(Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennet) were so willing to speak up and stir the pot.
The people crusading for this movement have to decide what their motive is... I know it's complicated because there are many facets to this struggle from addressing public opinion (science denial, educational policy, general education) to more philosophical matters pertaining to the intersection of faith and science (the larger worldview, the existence of God, the supernatural, etc.). Each has to be addressed in its own way (or not addressed at all).
As far as convincing the general public, in all honesty I find the confrontational in-your-face-here-are-the-facts method to be very ineffective. Sensible people already know that creationism is nonsense, and they get to this conclusion through educational and other impacts, almost NEVER ever through argument. What you point out here, that such discussion has led to greater efforts at 'arming' themselves of more 'knowledge', is exactly what argumentation leads to... each side just trying to prove each other wrong or getting more ingrained in their own ideas (I have more to say about this but I will hold back for now)
It is pretty entertaining to see how much we have advanced in our knowledge of science in the west, yet we fail to understand the simple psychology of the very fruitlessness of argumentation in this manner. I have never come across a believer or atheist conceding to the arguments of the opposite side- the mental block is just too dense and too large: when your pride and your faith are on the line you will do anything to win.
In other words, this argument back and forth is not simply about pointing out facts... you have to penetrate through a lot of mental blocks, which you can only do through empathy and civil conversation, not by 'crushing' arguments. Or perhaps the best bet is just through indirect methods like education..
Tyson has pointed out what I'm saying to Dawkins once, and he brushed it off without giving it much consideration:
ROFL
He does that to attract attention in order to sell his books. As brilliant scientist as he is, advanced science doesn't sell because maybe 0.001% of society can understant it. He wanted money and fame, plain and obvious. Please mind the fact that I don't think it's a bad thing to do so, I'm just stating an obvious fact. He's not trying to convince anyone, he's just trolling for money.
Yeah... well, I'm not that cynical. I get the sense that he's a genuine guy who is frustrated with the non-acceptance of science. Quite ironically, his methods are ineffective, and in that sense not really the most rational way to go about what he's trying to achieve.