I believe the target audience of the book is the semi-technical populace, not a purely technical one. And it is not written as a text book. People do have opinions. You seem to be chafed that it was not written as a proof. Okay, so ignore it.
Personally, I find the book fascinating. And as I probe a little deeper into the meaning of the word theorem, it is becoming clear that there are multiple definitions, depending on the discipline involved. And give the Wikipedia definition of a theorem re: science, it seems to me that Dr. Gitt’s use of the word is appropriate to the field of knowledge he is pursuing.
No “chafe” involved. I know that no properly formed logical theorem was intended. However, that faulty usage is merely emblematic of the overall sorry state of the discipline that is called creation science. Creation is a matter of faith and coexists with science in all fields, including evolution. Creation requires no phony science to support it, nor should it countenance the small but annoying band of guerilla-like militants touting its scientific accuracy and making the rest of Christianity appear feeble-minded by association.
That's missing the point, I think.
This is "Chapter 6," by which point Mr. Witt has gotten well into the double digits of "theorems." The repeated use of the term is no accident -- it is meant to connote an underlying technical depth to his discussion.
His "theorems" are not well stated, though. More to the point: from reading through his tedious string of insults and sneering dismissals, I cannot avoid the conclusion that he is trying to fool a certain group of people into thinking he has a "technical" basis for his assertions.
For the most part, though, he seems strikingly uninterested in providing positive proof of his own claims. Instead, he is inordinantly interested in complaining about other people's ideas. Unfortunately, to say that some other guy is wrong in his claims, is not proof that one's own claims are correct.
Even semi-technical literature has a duty to be rigorous, especially when the statement of "theorems" is involved. A lay-oriented discussion of a theorem must still fairl express the proplem at hand; however, Witt's "theorems," do not lend themselves to any level of careful thought.
I'm certainly comfortable with the idea of "design," but I don't appreciate people like Mr. Witt, whose approach to the issue does more to muddy the water, than to pass along useful information.