Has anyone stopped to wonder (as I often have) why a theory that is
as well supported as the theory of gravity” requires its defenders to engage in such faulty argumentation in its defense?
First consider the post-modern context in which today’s Darwinism thrives: Things needn’t make sense.
Trolls camp everywhere, possibly paying off student loans for a degree in “evolutionary psychology” while working at the Starbucks.
Yeah. Score one for survival sense.
Anyway, Darwin’s faithful can just keep yakking in front of the cameras, to a soulfully sympathetic journalist. Facts are the last thing that would matter. You can count on that journalist not to raise any of them.
No, it’s not intellectual life, but the mind is just an illusion anyway, right?
See also: Would we give up naturalism to solve the hard problem of consciousness?