The great Creation/Evolution debate is over. Will it go down in the history books with the same importance as the Thomas Huxley v. Samuel Wilberforce debate of 1860? Time will tell. I put in my two cents worth on how Ken Ham should have approached the debate. Here's some of what I wrote:
"Make the UnScience Guy account for the stuff of the cosmos, the organized information to make the cosmos act the way it does, how non-life became life as we know it given the fact that spontaneous generation is rejected by the scientific community on scientific grounds."
"Also make Nye account for non-physical entities like reason, logic, and morality and why the things that we evolved entities do or don't do have eternal consequences, and if they don't, then what would be morally (not socially, legally, culturally, or pragmatically) wrong for someone to put a loaded gun to Bill Nye's head and pull the trigger."
To be fair, Ken Ham did touch on these topics, but he didn't drive them home. He wasn't the proverbial junk yard dog.
[Read the rest of the article at Godfather Politics.]