Let's see now....
FRevos who have no scientific background or training are *qualified* to speak about evolution and all the shortcomings of ID/creation, even when their areas of study aren't specifically in the field of evolution or even science. Scientists who have PhD's in scientific fields and are much more highly educated than any handful of frevos randomly picked out and put together, are NOT qualified to speak on evolution if their PhD's are not specifically in the field of evolution itself.
So the question arises; Why should we take the word of untrained, unqualified evos who do it as a hobby over the word of a highly educated scientist who does science for a living when neither are speaking in a field of their expertise? Shouldn't the same standard be applied to both situations? Either we accept the words of scientists who are not specialists in evo because we accept the word of less educated evos who are not specialists in evo; or we do not accept the words of less educated evo when they speak on evolution because we don't take the word of highly trained scientists when they speak on evolution.
Half of my training in grad school, and for my Ph.D. exams, included specialties in human osteology and fossil man. That's six years of study at the grad level, resulting in a Ph.D., in this field.
That enough for you?
And your training in this field is...? What?
Your background, which lets you tell working professionals much more advanced than I am how to do their jobs, is what?
Or did you just stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night and read Answers in Guinness in your spare time?
You laid bare the challenge, now lets see your answer.