Replies

But most evolutionists over-state the strength of evolution as a theory,

For example?

fail to honestly articulate their own assumptions,

To be fair, if any scientist was expected to do that any time they made a statement, every utterence would be a dissertation. The audience is expected to have at least a working knowledge of science, the kind that they should have if they were paying attention in high school.

attack the credentials of their opponents rather than the arguments,

Examples, please -- I have *never* seen this done, *except* in response to at attempted "argument from authority" from the creationist side. In a case like that, it is *appropriate* to respond by showing that the "authority" being touted by the creationists isn't nearly the "expert" they hold him out to be.

When creationists actually make an argument on its own merits, it is addressed that way. Unfortunately, all too often they instead quote-mine something, and fling out the quote with an attribution of "so-and-so, emeritus biologist at the respected blah-blah university", as if that should be the end of the matter and anyone who disagrees with the esteemed [whoever] need not be taken seriously.

In cases like that (which again, are far too common among creationist "arguments"), it *is* appropriate to point out that the "esteemed expert" actually has a degree in basket-weaving or whatever.

retreat to triumphalism when shallow critiques of their opponents get posted on websites etc.

Should we *not* point out that while the avalanche of anti-evolutionist literature (websites, books, pamphlets, tapes, etc.) may appear impressive through sheer size, the vast majority of it is of laughably inept quality? The plain truth needs to be said, and the Emperor is at best wearing only a few strands of clothing.