Arguments 'evolutionists' should NOT use

An approach that I've usually taken has been to ask the creationist to explain his claim; eg, when he has presented an "insurmountable problem for evolution", I would ask him to explain why he believes it to be an "insurmountable problem". As to be expected, they have very rarely answered that question.

Try telling that to Phillip Johnson. His whole approach in "Darwin on Trial" was to apply courtroom rules and standards to evolution. A far better analogy for how science works would be a police investigation.When I first encountered him circa 1981 and listened to him (on a Nova episode), I immediately thought, "What an idiot!" But now there's a whole movement, Intelligent Design, that is based partially on his ideas.We will encounter many creationists who will confuse courtroom proof with scientific proof.