I could see how putting “junk” and “selfish” in quotes might confuse an Evo. But I don’t think the author was trying to fool his readers as putting those words in quotes would not fool a Creationist or an IDer for a moment. We all know the basic faith assumptions behind the Evos claim that ERVs are best explained by common descent. Surely you are familiar with concept behind so-called “junk” DNA? Surely you are familiar with Dawkin’s book “The Selfish Gene”? This is standard stuff that virtually all orthodox neo-Darwinists believe with passion.
And while I have not conducted a thorough keyword search of Theobald’s “29+ Evidences” to see if he uses the actual words “junk” DNA, that is precisely what he’s talking about in the following section of the same:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section3.html#molecular_inefficiency
This "Evo" wasn't "confused" by seeing those words in quotes. I just decided to see if the DI writer's claim of what Theobald meant was supported by what Theobald actually said. And lo, it wasn't. It's a common creationist tactic, to say that "when scientists say X, they must mean Y" and then to argue against Y, even though the scientist in question never actually said Y. The fact that other creationists and IDers agree with the assertion doesn't change its essential dishonesty.
And while I have not conducted a thorough keyword search of Theobald’s “29+ Evidences” to see if he uses the actual words “junk” DNA, that is precisely what he’s talking about in the following section of the same:
It wasn't hard to do the search: I just downloaded the PDF version and searched for the words "junk" and "selfish." They're not there. And the DI writer's contention was that those concepts applied to the ERV section, not the molecular inefficiency section. It'd be a lot easier to respect the DI writer's argument if he dealt with the words Theobald actually wrote, in the section he supposedly wrote them in.