So Kurt Wise has said (and Dawkins quotes it in the God Delusion also)
"if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."
Well obviously! If that is "what the Word of God seems to indicate" and the Word of God is, well, the Word of God, what other position could Wise take?
Dawkins would love it if the debate were about differing interpretations of the same agreed sources of evidence. But that would be a debate that assumed the very issues at stake! If Dawkins wants to debate people who agree that the scientific method is Lord, let him do so. But that would be an in-house debate within the scientific community and it wouldn't make him anywhere near as much money.
The real debate does not concern differing interpretations of the same data. It's about what counts as evidence, who says and how can it be verified.
Wise says Jesus is Lord and science is great. And if there's ever a conflict, Jesus wins. Well naturally! If he didn't say that he wouldn't be a Christian. And if Dawkins can't grasp that, he hasn't understood his opponent, nor the nature of the debate in which he's engaged.
For Dawkins, Science is Lord, end of story. And in the God Delusion he seeks to prove how very broad minded he is (as opposed to Wise - that disgrace to the human race). He says that if "all the evidence in the universe" points towards creationism he'd switch sides.
But of course that would be no switch at all. Even if he believed in six hour creation, it's the basis on which he formed such beliefs that is decisive. Dawkins might come to believe in a 6000 year old universe and not have budged an inch on the issue that really matters. Is Jesus Lord or is the scientific method Lord?
The debate is not a simple weighing of already-agreed evidence. And if Dawkins can't understand that he only proves that he's unqualified to discuss the matter.