[quote=mdk]
Exactly. And I don't disagree - but the reaction has been 'Ham thinks Creation, and creation is stupid,' not 'Ham's presentation was flawed in the sense that this piece of data was incorrect.'
[/quote]

I think it was more that Ham kept presenting the Bible as a literal truth. But when asked if it was a literal truth, he had to redefine the word literal before he could answer. 

The problem lies where Creationism diverged from modern science. If the diverging point was Darwinism, the Creationists have to continue to rationalize how modern science, apart from evolution, can coexist with the creationist model of the universe. Astrophysics, relativity, electromagnetism, radioactivity, molecules, bacteria and viruses, vaccines, and such and so forth exist in the world because of modern science, and these are the kinds of things that Creationists have to try to fit into their model. But it's like fitting a square peg into a round hole, many of these disciplines are intrinsically linked to and provide evidence for the idea of evolution. Since that's what Creationists reject, they're hard pressed to dance around the specific theories that can lend support to evolution while taking advantage of what modern science offers, and the technology we've produced based on our understanding of it. 

So it's not that Creationism is fundamentally flawed. It's like being Amish in a world of cell phones, automobiles and the Internet. You can't just pick and choose which science you accept. But that's what Ken Ham was pushing on stage tonight, a model of the world where parts of modern science are cherrypicked to fit into a very narrow and closed-minded view of the universe. The possibilities in Creationism aren't endless, they're finite.