[Dataman]

the authors are doubtless aware that creationists are largely impervious to evidence and argument.

Impervious to non-existent evidence and feeble fallacious arguments. Remember-

all evolutionists have to do to win the battle is actually produce that mountain of evidence they claim to have.

But they don't have it so how can anyone be impervious to it?

BTW, your argument is actually a straw man fallacy. Creationists are impervious to such fallacies, which seem to be the best arguments evolutionists can muster.

[snarks_when_bored]

Impervious to non-existent evidence and feeble fallacious arguments. Remember- all evolutionists have to do to win the battle is actually produce that mountain of evidence they claim to have. But they don't have it so how can anyone be impervious to it?

I'm not a biologist or a paleontologist. I suspect that you're not, either. I do know that almost all of the biologists and paleontologists living today think that some form or other of evolution is likely to be the best account we currently have for explaining the development of living species. The journals of biology and paleontology are replete with articles presenting evidence and argument for evolution in specific organisms and organism types. There are hundreds of thousands of such articles. Unless all of these articles are written by rank ideologues and (calling a spade a spade) liars, your talk of "non-existent evidence and feeble fallacious arguments" is just empty rhetoric.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the probability that virtually the entire world community of biology and paleontology researchers around the world is populated with pure idealogues and liars seems to me to be indistinguishable from zero.