Scientists may have the facts on their side, but they do not always make the best public speakers. Last week, science educator Bill Nye and Creation Museum founder Ken Ham sparred over the validity of young-Earth creationism at Ham’s museum, and while the vast majority of scientists side with Nye, many have also expressed dismay over his style and approach. Nye’s critics may be right about his debating skills, but this issue should be judged on the merits of the evidence, not the rhetorical skills of the opponents.

Part of Nye’s problem in the eyes of some supporters was the arguments he chose to attack. Joe “The Nerd” Ferraro explains the problem in a Huffington Post piece. Nye cited the usual lines of evidence discrediting creationism, covering fossils, Noah’s Ark, and the implausibility of a 6,000 year-old Earth, but he overlooked a major flaw in his opponent’s defense. For Christians, Jesus is God, and the most important part of the Bible are the words of Jesus, the direct voice of the divine. Everything else subsidiary—merely inspired. Jesus never endorsed the Genesis account of creation, thus Creationists are overstepping Jesus’s authority.

This failure to give Creationists a taste of their own medicine was not Nye’s only problem, it would seem; he also lacked the finesse and charisma of his opponent, as Michael Shulson of The Daily Beast laments. One of Ham’s major points was that science cannot prove historical events. This is patently false, Schulson explains, because we can infer about the past using present-day evidence, but Ham’s rhetoric was such “straightforward, logical-sounding” nonsense that it made for an entertaining debate. Meanwhile, Schulson describes Nye giving a dry, awkward lecture about the mating ritual of minnows.

Ferraro and Schulson may be right—Nye could have adopted a different strategy and style to dismantle his opponent’s argument and win over the audience—but does this does not mean science educators should adopt the same empty rhetoric and sophistry of science-deniers. To ensure that we remain economically competitive in the global marketplace (which was Nye’s fundamental concern in the debate) we need to address the critical thinking “vacuum” and teach young people to appreciate rational analysis over crass “edutainment”.

These are just a couple of the many responses to the Creation Museum debate. What do you think we should do to cultivate science literacy in young people? Does science education need to adopt more of the slick rhetoric of creationists to keep people rapt?