That's Debatable

There's a controversy among scientists regarding evolution--should they bother to debate creationists?  Which is why Richard Dawkins recently criticized Bill Nye (the Science Guy) for debating noted creationist Ken Ham.  Dawkins says since there's nothing to argue about, scientifically speaking, a debate just ends up giving creationists credibility.

It's always a tricky question--should you debate someone who holds a crackpot theory?  It's useful to introduce evidence to people who may not be aware of it, and perhaps you should be willing to defend your beliefs against all comers, but if you have a public back-and-forth on some issue, you may give the public the impression there's a serious debate going on.

But the fun part is there's a debate happening on the other side.  Turns out Ham is getting pressure from other creationists.  See, Ham is a Young Earth creationist, claiming the world was created about 6000 years ago.  Which has angered Pat Robertson.  As he puts it:

There ain’t no way that’s possible.  To say that it all came about in 6,000 years is just nonsense and I think it’s time we come off of that stuff and say this isn’t possible.  Let's be real, let’s not make a joke of ourselves.

Young Earth creationists had previously attacked Robertson for such comments, saying his argument amounts to admitting the Bible is not true.

I guess this all depends on how you want to interpret the Bible.  But as far as I'm concerned, on a scientific level, the Young Earth creationists' arguments aren't significantly worse than those of other creationists. If you're going to deny all that evidence, why not go whole hog?