No one in the intelligent design research community could have said this with greater punch.
Pat Flynn and Jim Madden press Behe with objections — some philosophic, others scientific — to see how well his position stands up to scrutiny.
If scientific considerations compel an inference to design, and more so, to a theistic conception of a transcendent creator, that’s surely important.
Egnor: “Do you want me to explain Thomistic dualism to you?…David, do you not know how St. Thomas explained intentionality?” Papineau: “Uh, no.”
What was missing until now is a weighing of the philosophical side of Dr. Meyer’s argument, on which much depends.