To any who may be interested:
What's your take on this guy's argumentation? He's the science columnist of my campus newspaper, here writing against Natural Law:
Natural Law (01/19/2005):
Sometimes its hard to make heads or tails of a person’s argument even to see where the reasoning goes wrong, or what implicit false presumptions are in play; you just know he’s not proving what he somehow thinks he is.
I did send a letter to the editor as a rebuttal, but so far they haven’t printed it, and it’s now been just over a week since the original column appeared in the paper. Here are a couple more of his past columns for a better idea of his orientation:
Thou Shalt Lie (01/05/2005):
Overlapping Magisteria (05/19/2004)