Quine, I read that article and learned nothing, except definitions for the words: parti pris, ineluctable, and apodictic. I am appreciative for that I suppose.

Seriously, the first paragraph: unsubstantiated claim; Second paragraph: misunderstood the Krauss point; Third paragraph: a build up to something, but remains unsubstantiated; Fourth paragraph: no substantiation and at best a weak argument from a single so-called authority; Fifth paragraph: either a lie or gross misunderstanding of methodological naturalism; Sixth paragraph: I actually read the book in question, is there really any substantive difference between John Haught and Ray Comfort? Perhaps Haught only grips the banana, while granted, Comfort squashes it but it's still a banana! Seventh paragraph: uses Freud and Nietzsche to prove what? That they would be wrong? Because they would be! Paragraph eight, atheists are utopia-minded Darwinists: straw man. Paragraph nine: I don't understand the "gotcha" point he is trying to make (a clump of cells can't be about anything), but then again, he does call that claim "extravagant" which makes me scratch my head further, why bother with it then?

Unfortunately, lay Catholics eat this "sophisticated theology" up and create awful "spin-off episodes" like Joanie Loves Chachi in other forums thereby futher tormenting society.

Mike