Currently reading this book, but I'm kind of on the fence about whether or not I agree with the way it was written. Don't get me wrong: I'm learning quite a bit more about the details of evolution and examples of hard "proof." I still like the book. But there are some statements that make me think they would be more appropriate in a book explaining why evolution is NOT true.
Statements such as:
"It only makes sense that..."
"We know that..."
"We learned that..."
While I understand this guy's audience are people who already know evolution is true, I can't help but to be taken aback by some of the author's assumptions of what I know and what makes sense to me. I'm a little disappointed at how dumbed-down and simplified some concepts are and wonder if this is for the benefit of the book's purpose or if it turns off others who see these assumptions of what the reader knows or believes as "red flags."
If you've read it, what do you think?