"A statement in which you accuse someone of having an uneducated opinion without any knowledge of them is the epitome of arrogance, self-righteousness, and extreme smugness."
We can only make conclusions about a poster based on their posting history.
The subject at hand is very specific. Those that have knowledge within this narrow field express that knowledge through the words they use, intentional or not. When I speak to a microbiologist I can expect to see language that exhibits confidence in the subject matter when speaking about microbiology. When I speak with an archaeologist I can expect to see a level of information and confidence when discussing archeology different than when discussing a less familiar subject.
When I speak to someone who is highly opinionated but has little real information about a subject I tend to see opinion buttressed by bravado.
Although the written word does not convey the same information about the author as direct face to face speech does about the speaker, the written word, as on this board, is not information free.
If the poster I originally addressed is educated in the subject at hand, evolution, or some part of it, let him put his knowledge on the line and address comments made to him about evolution. So far all that has been expressed by that poster has been notably information free.
If the poster starts including information in his/her posts then I was wrong, I will apologize and we can have a rational discussion.
If the poster continues to make nothing but smug remarks completely free of any science then I can only communicate with him as though he has no information.
This is not equivalent to saying he is generally uneducated, but that he is uneducated in the subject under discussion.
If my image of the poster based on his/her posting history makes me smug, so be it. That does not mean the other poster is any less smug. If you are attempting to fairly remind us to place our attitude at the door then speak to that poster as well.
"This is not equivalent to saying he is generally uneducated, but that he is uneducated in the subject under discussion."
When a poster posts a comment in which they claim someone is uneducated and provides no clarity as to what they mean by that, then they have wronged the other person. A more correct term to use in such an instance is the word "ignorant" of the subject as opposed to uneducated in general (which is what that post implied). This is especially true when the poster's comment has no clarification, wouldn't you say?