I interpret this sort of question not as asking for a further step in a causal chain, but rather as demanding a teleological explanation where none is available

I interpret this sort of question not as asking for a further step in a causal chain, but rather as demanding a teleological explanation where none is available. While I disagree with almost everything Chomsky says about everything, and I think it was meant to be somewhat sympathetic, it's really unfair to propose an affinity between Chomsky and O'Reilly in this manner. What the hell. Equally unfair is Norvig calling Chomsky a mystic for his invocation of Plato. Chomsky is a rationalist, not a mystic.