Billy offers an amusing treatise on how to deal with my poor arguments. Sadly, he makes a demonstrably false accusation here:
Watch out for use of technical language in the same posts where he blathers on about how he’s a layman and hasn’t read much about this. He’s covering the fact that a) he’s read more than he says, but wants to make it look as if he’s just smart, and b) he doesn’t know as much as he needs to.
I have read the following books dealing with evolution in some capacity: The Selfish Gene, Unweaving the Rainbow, A Devil’s Chaplain, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, and Freedom Evolves, all of them in the last six months. I own and have read parts of Marc Hauser’s Moral Minds and John Maynard Smith’s Evolution and the Theory of Games; I have also read Consciousness Explained although I’m not sure that really applies here. As to whether that makes me an expert on the subject, I leave it up to the evolutionists.
I have also read three or four pages at Talk Origins starting with Theobald’s 29 proofs for Macroevolution page, plus the one page on morphological rates written by the guy criticizing him. Whatever technical language I use is simply stuff I’m picking up from you all, either in Internet posts or stuff that makes the news. It’s not like it’s that hard to figure out what the jargon means given the context, and it takes about two seconds to look it up even when you can’t.
Perhaps I don’t know as much as I need to… that’s one of the things Scott and I were curious about. Scott already knows I’m not an idiot, but it’s certainly amusing to see how his fellow evolutionists are willing to invent new theories in order to cling to their belief that anyone who is more intelligent than they are absolutely must think as they do. Ah, my dear rational empiricists, how quickly you forget that observation trumps logic!
But why are you all so insecure? Seriously, is it your own occasional doubts that trouble you so or have you evolved into herd animals?