I've received several emails calling attention to Thomas Nagel's article in the new issue of Philosophy & Public Affairs, "Public Education and Intelligent Design." I read the argument as running roughly as follows:
ID is not non-science, but bad science. Bad science is a kind of science. Therefore, the Dover decision is incorrect.
I've read the piece only once and quickly, but it seems to me puzzling on many fronts. I'm struck buy how many times Nagel prefaces crucial moves in his argument with phrases like, "I'm not an expert, but...," and "To a layman, it seems as if...," and so on. Could someone out there who has read this essay with more care tell me: Has Nagel jumped the shark?