Well, I purused Darwin on Trial today in my local bookstore. I wasn't impressed. Its the sort of self indulgent navel gazeing reasoning I have come to expect from lawyers. The emperically observable universe is a tautology because it is the universe that can only be observed emperically? Its not a tautology its an axiom. a=a isn't a tautology its a axiomatic, and reasoning based on the axiom that a thing is equal to itself is so rediculously obvious that it would take the twisted mind of a legal scholar to ever suppose it could be otherwise. He actually denounces science as being relient on observation.
Now I have some grip on the arguments, I can address some of them. OK, one of them. I got board as ai said and couldn't stand to read the rest. The one I did read was that there is no evidence of specization under natural selection. Well, there is a species of salamander called Ensatina that lives in the foothiils of the sanfernando valley. In the south there are two species that will not mate with one another. One dark and one striped, with some other incedental differences here and there. Well as you work your way around the valley starting in the south and going clockwise the solid salamanders get more and more color variation. Each one mating with its neighbors. They get more blotchy until you work your way all the way around the valley and low and behold Enastina eschscholtzii has become the striped Enastina klauberi. They will not mate with one another but they form a complete ring living side bey side competing for the same resources, the differences preseserved by the sex prefrences of the two species. Its called a ring species, in which the intermediate forms are still alive.
Its not a single freak occurance. The same thing occures with two species of arctic gull called the Herring Gull and the Black Beaked Gull. They do not interbreed because of differences in their fethering, but they form a continuum of intermediate forms all the way around the arctic. Sex prefrences can and do drive reproductive success. And they can shift nearly as easily as do fashions. So there, two examples of observable specization occuring in the modern world among living animals. Objection over ruled.
I then spent the rest of my time with four different physics textbooks trying to reconcile the units for the Gravitational constant G, with the units for the electromagnetic constant k. The units can't really be reconciled but the two constants do differ by at least fifteen orders of magnatude. That's a 1 followed by fifteen zeroes. The formula for finding the actual force is the same. the Force is equal two the mass of one object times the mass of the second object divided by the square of the distance between them multiplied by the Gravitational constant. The smae formula is used for electromagnetic force exept that force equals the charge of one object times the charge of the second object (and if the product is positive its a repulsing force and if the product is negative its an attracting force,) divided by the square of the distance between them multiplied by the Electomagnetic constant. If I could get charge and mass finagled into the same units, and supposedly it can be done but its too much for me, then a direct comaparison of the Force could be made. But charge isn't usually measured in its mass equivelency and vice versa because of the huge scale difference I mentioned, they invented totally different units that are more conveniant to work with for each force. You try and figure out how amps per second squared converts to kilogram meters per second squared. It should be possible but hey are sooo different.