Well, if you were a lawyer, Patrick, you could probably have a field day with this guy in court! That would be interesting to see. :^)
The problem wouldn't be with my presentation, it would be in convincing the judge, who would probably have an intelligence not much greater the chair in which he sits. By the way, from my swift reading of Overman's argument, he appears to be operating in the so-called Scholastic school of philosophy. It was heavily abstract, and very little involved in dealing with data. It's been criticized over the last few centuries as having been an impediment to scientific progress. It was, however, quite Aristotlean, but way too "ivory tower." It was Scholastic arguments that confronted Galileo. The moons of Jupiter were dismissed as "unnecessary" to God's perfect creation. That kind of thing. In matters of pure theology, Scholasticism is fine. But it's inadequate as a substitute for the scientific method.