I don't believe that many (and in fact probably very few) in the scientific/historical skeptical community understand the importance of what you do. I was a prime example of this. When I first came across DC, I thought, "Yeah, the fact that he is an ex-apologist is novel, but why does he keeping philosophizing about things that he himself has already empirically falsified. C'mon John, move on and get with the really fascinating stuff going on."
Then I started reading more than just your posts: I started reading the comments. It was then I realized why you were philosophizing. There was no way myself, nor any hard-core empiricist, could convince a believer that their world-view lacked coherence based on external evidence until someone first showed them that it was internally incoherent. And, showing convincing internal incoherence, is something only a formerly committed insider can do.
So, why aren't atheists like Hemant and PZ recommending your work. Well, it wouldn't appeal to their core audience...However, when you go beyond just reading their posts and get to the comments sections of their blogs (see especially the "Ask Richard" posts on FA), you see us history/science types fall all over ourselves in trying to figure out how to talk to "true believers."
That is why your work should be important to gnus like PZ and RD...I also think part of the problem is your prominence as an author just happen to coincide the "[not so] great exclusionist/accommodationist debate." If you run into problems with that, just give me a call. My hardcore gnu credentials are fully established and current, and I'll firmly testify that you're no accommodationist. -- From Mtullyc