Where do you draw the line between taking on bad arguments and lending credence to corrosively stupid notions? This was one of the meta-debates that went on before, during and after the Nye v. Ham debate. It is a fine line to walk as savaging creationist stupidity publicly lends said stupidity, a veneer of credibility that it most certainly does not deserve. Bill did a fairly good job of making Ham’s arguments look like the silly pap that they are, but also brought more attention to the creationist set of bass-ackward notions as a whole.
Creation “science” needs to pack up its silly bags and go away. But I’m unsure if this is the right way to go about it. Anyhow, enjoy the post debate analysis. :)
2 comments
February 23, 2014 at 7:33 am
witchylisa
What an angelically educational voice….
LikeLike
February 24, 2014 at 12:27 am
bleatmop
I’m all for these type of debates. The more people that listen to them the better. This site here hosts the results to a debate that actually showed the results of what these debates do.
I think the results speak for themselves.
LikeLike