That is circular.
Accordingly, it is impossible for an apologist to have a scientific insight.
And that is an example of your ‘reasoning’? Nothing I’d be proud of.
That is not a very specific critique is it? What point is he challenging Meyer on? I’m sure that Meyer has much more scientific knowledge than some and much less scientific knowledge than others. Is there some here that don’t fit that description? Myself excepted. Virtually everyone has greater scientific knowledge than I.
I can however spot the circularity in your comment.
And I have no requirement that anyone to have never made an error. I’m sure Meyer has made them. What should I conclude from that?