I suppose it is. But the most prominent displayers of that attitude are the creationists often found here. I’m sure you can come up with some names. And I do find that the supporters of evolution who post here in general have more reason for swaggering than the IDers.
No, your word choice shows a quite different request. You want “academic qualifications” and “training”. Would you not agree that it’s possible to become knowledgeable on a subject without either of those? Reading in the literature is helpful.
Please explain. What is that training, and what are those areas? The quoted bits suggest that the training wasn’t very good. Or one might charitably suppose that it’s very poor writing skills rather than ignorance that result in the gibberish. But Roy is right that it’s gibberish.
Aren’t we beyond arguments from authority here? Does what he says make sense? I hope that the fact that you know someone personally is not a criterion for acceptance of his ideas, even if he has “advanced training in areas relevant to his article”.