Perhaps we can't expect a more penetrating rebuttal from a...never mind. Anyway, why not a professor of Law, when leading "scientists" say things like this?
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.Contrary to what many materialists have claimed, this is not the attitude of an impartial seeker after truth, who allows the evidence to take him wherever it will. This is the creed of a religious man. Perhaps a Professor of Law is more easily able to recognize this fact than the evolutionary biologists, most of whom are blinded by their own a priori assumption of materialism.
See, you get off on these philosophical benders because you can't handle the massive amount of evidence. "Geez, the evidence points to evolution, maybe we can attack the philosophy and make the evidence go away."
Sorry, but evidence of evolution is just massive, massive, massive. The only arguments are about where certain splits occurred, when they occurred, etc. No one in the field seriously questions the general flow of evolutionary forces.
Funny, isn't it, that the only people sqeaking about the "flaws" of evolutionary science always have a religious agenda in their back pocket. What are the chances, ha ha ha