It’s possible to be totally rational, intelligent, logical, and wrong at the same time. Why can’t Chris Mooney recognize this?
We can “know” that an intelligent cause is the best explanation in precisely the same way that we infer materialistic causes.
“I read over the ‘provisionally accepted’ paper. It is obvious to me, non-mathematician, that it was completely incoherent, and never would have made it.”
Spiders are good for scaring people at Halloween, but they’re really intelligently designed animals more scared of us than we are of them, with eight eyes to alert them of our approach.
“The right is not more anti-science than the left; it just has terrible public relations.”
The circular, self-serving nature of Mooney’s argument is hard to miss.
One day recently, I came into my office to find that two newly published books I had ordered arrived on the same day.
Reading his Darwin, Marx, Wagner: Critique of a Heritage was transformative for me.
Arlin Stoltzfus opens his paper by marveling at the “baroque and apparently gratuitous complexity” we see in biology.
Thomas Nagel’s important Mind and Cosmos has already received some attention on ENV — regarding Nagel’s respectful comments on intelligent design in particular.