Why can't evolutionists see their own hypocrisy?

I have a Bachelor of Science degree.  Really!  It may be in business but it’s still considered a science degree - just not that kind of science.  It’s sort of like doctors who aren’t “doctor doctors.”  Since my BS is in Business Administration and not a “real science,” evolutionists sometimes try to bully me for speaking about a subject in which I’ve never had any training.  But I’m not telling you anything you don’t know.  If you’re a creationist, you’ve probably been told you don’t believe in evolution because you don’t understand evolution.  Am I right?

Such an argument is a blatant fallacy of logic.  It leads with an appeal to authority: that is, “Most PhD biologists believe in evolution so it has to be true.”  It follows up with an ad hominem: “You’re not a scientist so you’re not qualified to judge the theory of evolution.”  Finally, it sprinkles in some No True Scotsman: “Everyone who understands evolution believes in evolution.”

Some time back, I came across one staunch evolutionist who was making this very point. He waxed on about the many thousands of scientists who have dedicated their careers to studying evolution and that it was arrogance on the part of non-scientists to reject their conclusions as though we understand better than they. This particular evolutionist went on to ask what other subject exists where the opinions of lay people are given consideration over the opinions of people who are experts in the subject.  He seemed to be asking the question rhetorically thinking the answer was obvious. He believed there is no other subject where people with no formal training in a subject would boldly put forth opinions that contradicted the conclusions of experts of the subject. 

Much to his embarrassment, I suggested this subject: people who have not studied the Bible still feel perfectly qualified to criticize the Bible. They smugly rebuff and deride the conclusions of thousands of theologians who have dedicated their lives to the study of the Bible. The entire extent of these critics’ “research” may be nothing more than using a Google search yet they are thoroughly convinced the Bible is rife with errors, Christianity is a sham, and there is no God.  So yes, there is another subject besides evolution about which lay people feel free to voice their opinions. 

It seems to me evolutionists want to have it both ways. They want to condemn creationists as lay people who are not qualified to judge the truthfulness of evolution. Yet they feel they are perfectly able to judge the truthfulness of the Bible even though they may not be formally trained in theology. People who use this argument paint themselves into a proverbial corner. They need to either acknowledge that people can have opinions (even correct opinions) in subjects they are not formally trained in OR they need to stop criticizing the Bible or Christianity until they receive formal training on the subject. Which is it going to be?

But their hypocrisy doesn’t end there. If they believe non-scientist creationists are not qualified to judge their theory, what makes a non-scientist evolutionist qualified to judge his own theory? If I – as a non-scientist – cannot judge their theory false, then neither can a non-scientist judge the theory true! Alas, no. It doesn’t work that way. To them, people who reject evolution are ignorant fools and people who accept evolution are enlightened thinkers. Acceptance or rejection of the theory is the only test required; no one needs to demonstrate how well they actually understand the theory.

This is something that has always annoyed me about evolutionists.  They will claim they don’t believe anything without evidence but it’s a lie because most of them have never laid eyes on a single piece of evidence for evolution!  Let’s face it, most people aren’t scientists.  They’ve never conducted research, they’ve never worked in a lab, they’ve never been at a fossil dig site, nor have they ever written a “peer-reviewed,” scientific paper.  To be honest, I doubt most evolutionists have even read a peer-reviewed, technical paper.  

Even among practicing scientists, there are only a handful of people in the world who have actually laid eyes on the fossil of an alleged human ancestor.  Most of those fossils are sequestered, leaving only plaster copies made from other plaster copies available for examination.  What’s more, most sciences have nothing to do with evolution - chemistry, physics, astronomy, meteorology engineering, mathematics, etc., seldom ever do any research on evolution.  So a tiny, tiny fraction of people have actually done any research in the theory believed by millions of people - yet the millions claim they don’t believe anything unless they see the evidence for themselves.   //RKBentley rolls his eyes//

At most, lay evolutionists can only claim they’ve read about the evidence written by people who they trust and who claim to have actually done research on evolution.  Well, I can claim the same thing, can’t I?  I’ve studied the evidence for evolution and feel I probably understand the theory as well or better than the average evolutionist!  If they can have an opinion, then so can I.

So let’s wrap this up.  There seems to be a pot-kettle dilemma going on: some evolutionists dismiss creationist arguments because they feel non-scientists aren’t qualified to judge the truthfulness of the theory. However, these evolutionists themselves aren’t scientists yet feel they are perfectly qualified to judge both the truthfulness of their own theory and the truthfulness of the Bible - in which they also have no training!   Do I have that right?  Yep, I guess that about sums it up.  

Can’t evolutionists see their own hypocrisy? Their criticism has no teeth.  They want to silence people with a lazy tactic that is nothing more than a tangle of logical fallacies.  The argument even shines a light on their own ignorance of the theory they claim to believe.  So the next time you hear an evolutionist say, “You’re not a scientist,” you can say back to them, “Pot, meet kettle!”