I’m not surprised that you disagree, Gerald. But I do not see how moral realism is incompatible with physicalism. We experience emotions, so do many, if not all, animals. That can as easily be the consequence of a cosmic ‘accident’ as of intelligent design. It is our ability to experience emotions that gives us that sense of morality. To posit intelligent design you have to be prepared to answer some questions relating to phemomena which, to me, are incompatible with the presence of intelligence behind the ‘design’.

Questions like: why disease? Why poison? As a rationalist I can see the purpose of snake venom or a bee sting (and all such phenomena) as means by which creatures protect themselves from predation. But where is the intelligence in a design that predicates predation as a fundamental bulding block? Every living thing exists as food for some other living thing(s). Why is that more likely to be the case because of intelligent design than because of an accident? And why does the answer profoundly influence our behaviour towards each other?

Humans are not the only species that feel affection. Some can feel affection towards creatures of a different species than themselves. If not, we would not be able to domesticate them in the way that we have. Is that a sign of intelligent design, or of Darwinian survival strategies? Are such strategies part of the design? How do you explain such strategies having been ‘designed in’ alongside equipment intended to make it difficult? How is that ‘intelligent’?

As I say, these things are the way they are and we have to live our lives in a fashion that makes the best of it without wasting time trying to understand why they are that way.