Nye/Ham and Evolution vs. evolution
Didn't see the Ham/Nye debate last night. Had seven boys in my house, so I was quite busy. And wasn't all that interested anyway, imagining that they'd talk past each other a lot.
In the largest sense, the topic is over-rated. The Bible easily allows for a young earth or an old earth-- a fun topic, and something one should know when talking about such things with non-believers. And there's Gerald Schroeder in The Science of God who lays out why time will look different from earth vs. the center of the universe in a way that accommodates both views.
Of course, I'm quite comfortable with evolution playing a big role in God's creation. Maybe He used it for 14% or 92% of what we see. Whatever. And let's ignore the questions of how it all began and how life began. It's clear that evolution-- as a comprehensive "explanation" for all that we see-- is, obviously, mostly story: the skin of scientific explanation stuffed with a lovely (but vague) narrative.
It's interesting to poke around with most people on these topics-- because they're similarly open to what evolution might (not) have done. Since they don't have a eminently personal stake in the question, they are open. It can also be interesting to talk with people whose metaphysical beliefs require evolution to accomplish everything. But it can get tiresome too, since their faith-- and often, their blindness to the extent of their faith-- gets old.
Here's an article by Fred Reed from my pile. Not sure about the particular details of each animal (it sounds fine to me, but he could be wrong), but it's strong on the general weaknesses of "the faith".