Geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky famously wrote, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” Did you get that? Nothing.
Yet after urging that “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved,” molecular biologist and Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick remarked, “It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large role in guiding biological research, but that is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now.”
The contradiction between these two scientists is rather odd. If it is enough to study living things without paying attention to natural selection, as Crick thought, …
Crick didn’t say it was enough to study living things, he said it was hard to study living things, and much harder to study their evolution. There is no contradiction. It is very hard to study the detailed evolutionary history of something, because we can’t see it directly. That doesn’t mean it isn’t necessary - but it does mean that easier investigations are likely to be done first. Budziszewski is confusing picking low-hanging fruit with pretending the rest of the fruit doesn’t exist.
The rest of the article is all about debate techniques, and whether it is acceptable to deceive in order to promote a view. I’d have thought a philosopher would know that focussing on the debate technique used by proponents of an idea rather than the available evidence is a fallacy, but apparently this philosopher doesn’t because he doesn’t mention evidence at all.