Darwinism can't be defended by mere silliness? Whodathunkit?

Years ago, when people would ask me how anyone could take seriously the pseudo-insights from evolutionary psychology, I would say that Darwinism today is where astrology was in the high middle ages: Truth, falsehood and nonsense all defend it equally. Its practitioners need only emit agreeable nonsense, and everyone who wants to get on in the world immediately acquiesces. (Unless he has a power base that suspects it is bunk.)

Mathematician Jason Rosenhouse, who hatres the ID folk, nonetheless thinks, as I do, that evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne signally failed to grapple with any real issues when he tried to trash Mike Behe’s Edge of Evolution.

Coyne's little challenges here are a mixture of good points and bad points, but they are all jumbled together and the whole thing is presented with such malice that he even managed to turn me off, and I already think Behe is a snake. If he could piss ME off just think of the effect he is having on anyone who does not already despise ID.

Earth to Rosenhouse: Most of the world doesn't despise ID. People who doze gravel at a steep angle to pay your salary do not usually despise ID.

I seem to recall University of Toronto evolutionary biologist Larry Moran saying something similar.

(I shouldn’t need to say this here, but you have to meet a cogent argument with a cogent argument, and you can’t meet a cogent argument with dancing with the biologists. Well, you can, but ... )

Rosenhouse and Moran both think Darwinism can be fireproofed. Good job I don’t underwrite the policy.