On the Ham/Nye debate

I've been following the Creation/Science debate between Ham and Nye and its aftermath. I am troubled by many things among them are:

1. Ham only seems to acknowledges one single Christian position on science. So either you accept his position 100% or are lumped together with the 'secularists'. 
2. Ham's answers in Genesis at its foundation seems to be much more about, and motivated by, a particular way of interpreting the Bible than science. This should be made clear up front. 
3. Since Ham is really doing Biblical interpretation, it is very strange that he does not seem to be in conversation with others scholars who read Hebrew and understand the culture in the Ancient Near East. 
4. Ham's argumentation style is ungracious; he often unfairly characterizes and often demonizes his opponents. 
5. Ham often emphases the idea that if you don't agree him and with his way of interpreting the Bible then you will end up becoming completely secularized supporting things like euthanasia. This is frankly deeply offensive and without basis, and only shows that he doesn't understand other positions.

Of all my concerns, and there are more, my biggest is that we let this issue divide the christian community. If you believe Ham, there is only one valid Christian view: his!. Is it not possible that others who treasure scripture and hold it as inspired and authoritative come to a different view than his? Wouldn't it be better if Christians could unite what we agree on - that God ultimately created everything - instead of being divided over how creation might have happened.