UPDATE: Oops, Barry, my bad. It was a long work day and I overlooked your post. Here’s my essay on VJ’s point #7.
vjtorley asks this extremely important question here.
VJ’s point #7: The question in dispute relates to multiple disciplines, in several of which you have a limited degree of expertise, whereas the expert you are listening to has a great deal of expertise in just ONE of these disciplines.
This is the problem with declarations of certitude on the part of Darwinists. Once it was discovered in the 20th century that living systems are not essentially based on chemical reactions and stochastic processes, but upon information and information-processing systems, the proponents of chance-and-necessity biology left their area of “expertise” and were doomed to defend an indefensible proposition, as the onslaught of statistical mathematics, information theory, and computer science rendered their hypotheses utterly bereft of plausibility.
Yet, they insist that those of us who challenge their transparently absurd claims — in light of modern science, mathematics, and technology – are the troglodytes. This represents an interesting reversal of roles.