Hello, Scientific American Readers

Gettin' noticed in the world!

John Rennie makes a really excellent point in the comments,

Nelson phrased his thought experiment with the intention of forcing Miller to choose either a thief or a "natural regularity" as the explanation. Miller pointed out that this is not a true choice because we already know human intelligences exist, which means that a human thief is a natural regularity.

Nelson's gedanken experiment was rigged from the start as a false choice. His after the fact dancing on a philosophical pin and half-hearted apologia justifies nothing. The audience certainly did not join him in this in any case.

There's also the obligatory 'I can't believe they think ID and Creationism are the same thing' kind of comments. But that's expected.

That's awesome! Congrats! You're getting into all my favorite magazines. First Skeptic, now SciAm.

As Bruce Campbell would say, "Groovy!"