Aren't Science vs. Creation Debates......rather pointless?

[PerennialPhilosophy]

Don't get me wrong, I do love watching/reading these debates, but for all intensive purposes no one really learns anything new from Science vs. Creation debates. I mean compared to a debate with two theoretical physicists arguing whether information is lost in a black hole, I learn tremendously more: how entropy is information, how Hawking radiation exists through quantum entanglement, plus much much more... What I get from Science vs. Creation debates is nothing new except on strategies of how to come up with clever semantics to BS people.  

I just hate it when people debate really about anything and then one debater boils their argument down to "semantics" which at that point I just view them as the un-admitted loser of the debate.

Also, it also begs the question, then why do we have these debates (particularly at places like Science festivals)?  I think it's just mankind's desire for drama.  Or in other words, it's the same reason why we watch cheesy soap operas, reality shows, or talent shows where the judge bitches out the contestant for being so worthless and such......is why we still have Atheist vs. Creationist debates.  At least I know that is why I  watch them 

Anyway, what are your thoughts of this?

Saying we don't learn anything from this is a big statement about epistemology. What do you consider actual learning?
Also, semantics are useful when debating. Often people disagree because they have two different understandings of what a word means. I would recommend reading Phaedrus by Plato for a good look at how important that can be.