Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham follow-up thoughts.

I have to admit after watching the debate, I now agree with Richard Dawkins that we shouldn't debate with creationists at all. Nye did well, but imho it wasn't an event he could "win". Ken Ham peddles young earth nonsense for a living--and he's very good at what he does. He's not bound by what science actually says or does and is at liberty to use virtually rhetorical device no matter how fallacious or at odds with reality. He's extremely sophisticated. His arguments and claims are carefully constructed to possess a surface of validity for viewers with a basic, high-school level science education--just enough to give the illusion of scientific credibility to the untrained eye. The end result, I fear, was that a large number of viewers were left with the impression that there really is a scientific debate about whether or not the Earth is 6000 years old. This is a terrible loss because it not only gives radical creationists intellectual cover for their mission to inject religion into science classes, but may find traction among those who were uncertain and/or motivated to believe it. This, I think, is not a trivial fraction of America.