By ‘name-calling’ I was referring to your use of the phrase “old-earth Creationist writer, and Christadelphian”, seeming to suggest that he was therefore incapable of writing anything worthy of reading. These two things may be facts but they are irrelevant to the content of my article, hence my use of the word ‘name-calling’. Another way of phrasing this might be ad hominem, since you are criticising the man, not the content of his ideas. You and I may disagree with his metaphysical viewpoint, but that is irrelevant to what I was saying in the article; he did not have to be ‘versed in biology’ in order to quote those who were.

Your plant and dog breeding analogy is not a great one, since it involves a human planner (designer), hence any changes are not unguided. It is not the science of evolution that I’m criticising, rather the unwarranted (and inaccurate) metaphysical conclusions.