Hitchens was a bit misinformed in this interview in respect to Wallace. Almost all evolutionists accept that Darwin did a lot more work, writing, thinking, research, and anticipating counter-arguments on natural selection, than Wallace did.

I've noticed that about Hitchens - as soon as he strays into the realm of science, his regular confidence and dazzling intellectual start to work against him. Getting things wrong is going to open him up to criticism from all sides. He either needs to do some more reading or admit he doesn't know.

Also, I don't think the humanities can do a better job of arguing against theism than science. Poems, plays, literature, paintings and music, can be interpreted any way you want - and they share with religion an inherent anthropocentrism, and Hitchens normally decries solipsism.

Yes, bring Alistair McGrath within firing range of Hitchens - that'll be interesting. The trouble is McGrath's beliefs are so vague and his statements so vacuous, it will be a challenge for Hitchens to score points.