The problem is that if you want to argue science, you need to become versed in the subject. When non-scientists try to attack science, they often fall short because they do not know what they are talking about. Yes, it does sound arrogant and scientists need to be more eloquent, but it does not change the facts on the ground. In order to argue against evolution, you need to study and understand the current state of evolution and biological sciences. There are a lot of people who try to 'arm-caheir quarterback' science, but that does not mean they know what they are doing.
I work in industrial R&D, where knowing science makes or breaks the company. If you don't know what you are talking about and cannot perform basic science, you will be chewed up and spat out in the unforgiving business world where results matter.
Perfoming science properly reqires an ability to properly understand and apply the scientific method not to understand and accept the ToE. *Science* and *evolution* are not interchangable terms.