Vincent Buliosi has a book out called “Divinity of doubt.” This will be a masochistic read for me, since, thus far, he has resorted to the first cause, and “no transitional forms,” and “personal incredulity” arguments. I just finished chapter 5, and thus far am thoroughly impressed by his ability to write about that which he doesn’t understand.
I will start with saying that I had to stop reading when I didn’t have a place to write notes. It is really that bad. He isn’t a bad writer, just thoroughly unfamiliar with science and technology, often starting with false premises relating to technology and not-even-wrong ideas about science and running with them.
These include:
Computers
Memory (computer and neurological)
Spacetime
Fossilization
Self awareness in animals
Animal ingenuity
Animal cultural learning
The nature of domestic animals
The rate of evolution
Causality
And many others.
I will finish reading, I shall cover them in turn. Most of my readers will likely know more on some of these subjects than I do, so feel free to chime in.
I’d be embarrassed to ever use the personal incredulity argument. Since it means one is ignorant, cognitively limited, biased, misinformed or a liar. Not a good defense in my opinion.