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. :)