Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel’s anti-Darwin book “can’t be ignored by the thinking public”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Meanwhile, in Darwin’s corner, there is now an English prof somewhere who was traumatized by growing up in a “Creationist household” (along with a growing army of accusers and litigants?)

Political scientist John West’s essay in The Claremont Review of Books, “Dissent of Man,” is now online here:

It’s not often that a book by a professional philosopher attracts the notice—let alone the ire—of the cultural powers-that-be. One can think of Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind in the 1980s, but other examples are hard to come by. At any rate, Mind & Cosmos is well on its way to becoming a book that can’t be ignored by the thinking public. Thus far, it has been denounced in the Nation and the Huffington Post, dubbed the “most despised science book of 2012” by the London Guardian, defended in the New Republic (where Nagel’s critics were blasted as “Darwinist dittoheads” and a “mob of materialists”), subjected to a feature story in the New York Times, and put on the cover of the Weekly Standard, which depicted Nagel being burned alive, surrounded by a cabal of demonic-looking men in hoods.

The author has attracted special displeasure from the powers-that-be for using Mind and Cosmos to praise intelligent design proponents such as biochemist Michael Behe and philosopher of science Stephen Meyer. As the New York Times explained, many of Nagel’s fellow academics view him unfavorably “not just for the specifics of his arguments but also for what they see as a dangerous sympathy for intelligent design.” Now there is a revealing comment: academics, typically blasé about everything from justifications of infanticide to pedophilia, have concluded that it is “dangerous” to give a hearing to scholars who think nature displays evidence of intelligent design.

An especially brazen attempt [at Darwin myth-making] is Rebecca Stott’s Darwin’s Ghosts: The Secret History of Evolution. Stott’s book purports to tell “the story of the collective discovery of evolution” starting with Aristotle, medieval Islamic writer Al-Jahiz, and Leonardo da Vinci. If it really accomplished that feat, the book would be extraordinary, given that each of those writers believed in the fixity of species and a natural world imbued with purpose.

Though the author herself, a professor of English at East Anglia University, obviously wants to draw a line from Aristotle, et al., to Darwin, she (unlike her book jacket) is frank enough to concede that the thinkers she discusses for the first hundred pages of her book were not in fact evolutionists, Darwinian or otherwise.

Stott highlights what she sees as the oppressive forces of religion squelching heterodox ideas among the valiant, free-thinking proto-evolutionists. For anyone familiar with 19th-century broadsides like Andrew Dickson White’s The Warfare of Science with Theology, this approach is far from fresh. But writing the book was obviously therapeutic for Stott, who makes clear at the start that she was traumatized by growing up in a “Creationist household.” More.

Note: Full title of the essay is “Dissent of Man: A review of Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False, by Thomas Nagel and Darwin’s Ghosts: The Secret History of Evolution, by Rebecca Stott”

Comments
Barb, you just went zero to ad hominem, in 3.6 seconds. Congrats. Right after telling me I "add nothing but ad hominem" myself no less. Let me know when you guys have something intelligent to say.AVS
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT
Funny how he says "Adios" in post #72, yet he's still here posting. Does he not understand the meaning of the word? Or has he not exploded yet?Barb
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT
Why does everyone keep feeding the troll (AVS)?
Because if you feed it enough it eventually explodes in an amazing display of self-righteous indignation. Definitely worth the price of admission.Mung
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT
You know, I keep hearing that, and yet I am the only one who is presenting scientific information in a coherent manner.AVS
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT
Funny you ask me that, while you've added nothing but ad hominem arguments yourself.Barb
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT
Do you have anything intelligent to add to the conversation Barb?AVS
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT
Mr. Bornagain, you asked for "an example of Darwinian processes creating a new protein." I gave you exactly that: An example of one functional protein sequence arising from another by just a small number of mutations. Now of course after I do that, you move the goalpost and ask for "an actual demonstration of evolution in action." And again I will give you an example of this: Rapid speciation of Helianthus anomalus was predicted to have occured by hybridization of H. annus and H. petorialis. H. anomalus is a distinct species from the two parental species as it cannot reproduce with the either of the parental species. This was modeled in the lab by hybridizing the two parental species, producing offspring that was largely infertile. However, the small percentage that were fertile, after just four generations of hybrid mating, the new species had a fertility rate over 90%. In summary a new, distinct species was formed (speciation) also known as macroevolution. Now, lets watch you reword your question and then copy/paste a mile-long nonsensical response about quantum electrodynamics and obscure quotes.AVS
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT
Why does everyone keep feeding the troll (AVS)?Barb
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT
AVS, I know you probably consider it beneath yourself, and the theory of evolution, to have to actually provide an actual demonstration of evolution in action instead of a mere sequence comparison as you did here: Molecular divergence of lysozymes and alpha-lactalbumin. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9307874 But if you could be so kind as to provide an actual example instead of a sequence comparison I think you might have a much more convincing argument with us IDiots: When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied. http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/18022460402/when-theory-and-experiment-collide "Biologist Douglas Axe on Evolution's (non) Ability to Produce New (Protein) Functions " - video Quote: It turns out once you get above the number six [changes in amino acids] -- and even at lower numbers actually -- but once you get above the number six you can pretty decisively rule out an evolutionary transition because it would take far more time than there is on planet Earth and larger populations than there are on planet Earth. http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-10-15T16_05_14-07_00 Dr. Axe challenges a Darwinist to create a single new gene by Darwinian processes: Show Me: A Challenge for Martin Poenie - Douglas Axe August 16, 2013 Excerpt: Poenie want to be free to appeal to evolutionary processes for explaining past events without shouldering any responsibility for demonstrating that these processes actually work in the present. That clearly isn't valid. Unless we want to rewrite the rules of science, we have to assume that what doesn't work didn't work. It isn't valid to think that evolution did create new enzymes if it hasn't been demonstrated that it can create new enzymes. And if Poenie really thinks this has been done, then I'd like to present him with an opportunity to prove it. He says, "Recombination can do all the things that Axe thinks are impossible." Can it really? Please show me, Martin! I'll send you a strain of E. coli that lacks the bioF gene, and you show me how recombination, or any other natural process operating in that strain, can create a new gene that does the job of bioF within a few billion years. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/a_challenge_for075611.htmlbornagain77
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
Mr Bornagain, when you say "no one," do you mean "no one on this here website of esteemed intellectuals" or do you mean no one on Earth? Try googling the proteins alpha-lactalbumin and lysozyme, then get back to me on that one. They are perfect examples of a functionally different protein arising from a few small changes to an ancestral protein. Maybe next time you should try learning about a topic before posting about it. Ive mentioned this exact example to you Im quite sure already.AVS
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT
I don't mean to be presumptuous, Kurt, if you're listening. But I expect I am.Axel
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT
“The formation within geological time of a human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components.” Surely, less likely, since relapse from order to chaos - don't you bods call it 'entropy'? - is normal; while matter in a process of 'living design' is, well... intelligent and purposeful.Axel
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT
AVS, you seem to consider yourself an exceptionally intelligent hombre who has no use for less intelligent people. Thus I was wondering if you could help me with a little problem I have trouble understanding. You see AVS, no one can seem to come up with an example of Darwinian processes creating a new protein, nor can anyone seem to find an example of Darwinian processes transforming an existing protein of a particular function into any other protein of another function even if the protein sequences are very similar:
Doug Axe PhD. on the Rarity and 'non-Evolvability' of Functional Proteins - video (notes in video description) http://www.metacafe.com/watch/9243592/ Corticosteroid Receptors in Vertebrates: Luck or Design? - Ann Gauger - October 11, 2011 Excerpt: if merely changing binding preferences is hard, even when you start with the right ancestral form, then converting an enzyme to a new function is completely beyond the reach of unguided evolution, no matter where you start. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/luck_or_design051801.html Stability effects of mutations and protein evolvability. October 2009 Excerpt: The accepted paradigm that proteins can tolerate nearly any amino acid substitution has been replaced by the view that the deleterious effects of mutations, and especially their tendency to undermine the thermodynamic and kinetic stability of protein, is a major constraint on protein evolvability,, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19765975
This 'problem' AVS, (if there truly is such a thing as a 'problem' for all-mighty power of evolution), has recently been exasperated by the finding of completely unique ORFan gene/proteins in humans that are not found in chimps (nor found in anything else for that matter):
Human Gene Count Tumbles Again - 2008 Excerpt: Scientists on the hunt for typical genes — that is, the ones that encode proteins — have traditionally set their sights on so-called open reading frames, which are long stretches of 300 or more nucleotides, or “letters” of DNA, bookended by genetic start and stop signals.,,,, The researchers considered genes to be valid if and only if similar sequences could be found in other mammals – namely, mouse and dog. Applying this technique to nearly 22,000 genes in the Ensembl gene catalog, the analysis revealed 1,177 “orphan” DNA sequences.,,, the researchers compared the orphan sequences to the DNA of two primate cousins, chimpanzees and macaques. After careful genomic comparisons, the orphan genes were found to be true to their name — they were absent from both primate genomes. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080113161406.htm "More than 6 percent of genes found in humans simply aren't found in any form in chimpanzees. There are over fourteen hundred novel genes expressed in humans but not in chimps." Jerry Coyne - ardent and 'angry' neo-Darwinist - professor at the University of Chicago in the department of ecology and evolution for twenty years. He specializes in evolutionary genetics (and inquisition style censorship of ID proponents). Mechanisms and dynamics of orphan gene emergence in insect genomes - January 2013 Excerpt: Orphans are an enigmatic portion of the genome since their origin and function are mostly unknown and they typically make up 10 to 30% of all genes in a genome. http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/01/24/gbe.evt009.full.pdf+html "However, with the advent of sequencing of full genomes, it became clear that approximately 20–40% of the identified genes could not be associated with a gene family that was known before. Such genes were originally called ‘orphan’ genes" - May 2013 http://ccsb.dfci.harvard.edu/web/export/sites/default/ccsb/publications/papers/2013/Tautz_eLS_2013.pdf
Moreover, many of new ORFans are also found in the brain:
De Novo Origin of Human Protein-Coding Genes - 2011 Here we identify 60 new protein-coding genes that originated de novo on the human lineage since divergence from the chimpanzee, supported by both transcriptional and proteomic evidence. It is inconsistent with the traditional view that the de novo origin of new genes is rare. RNA–seq data indicate that these de novo originated genes have their highest expression in the cerebral cortex and testes, suggesting these genes may contribute to phenotypic traits that are unique to humans, such as development of cognitive ability. Therefore, the importance of de novo origination needs greater appreciation. http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1002379
The last paper was interesting because explaining human brain evolution by Darwinian processes has become much more complicated, not less complicated, the more that has been discovered about the phenotypic differences between chimps and humans:
Human brain evolution: From gene discovery to phenotype discovery - Todd M. Preuss - February 2012 Excerpt: It is now clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more extensive than previously thought; their genomes are not 98% or 99% identical.,,, ,,our understanding of the relationship between genetic changes and phenotypic changes is tenuous. This is true even for the most intensively studied gene, FOXP2,, In part, the difficulty of connecting genes to phenotypes reflects our generally poor knowledge of human phenotypic specializations, as well as the difficulty of interpreting the consequences of genetic changes in species that are not amenable to invasive research. http://www.pnas.org/content/109/suppl.1/10709.full.pdf
Now AVS, seeing as you have so much pride in your highly evolved brain, I was hoping that you could shed a little light for us lesser evolved creatures and tell us exactly how your highly evolved brain came to be in the first place:
"Complexity Brake" Defies Evolution - August 2012 Excerpt: "This is bad news. Consider a neuronal synapse -- the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years. Or consider the task of fully characterizing the visual cortex of the mouse -- about 2 million neurons. Under the extreme assumption that the neurons in these systems can all interact with each other, analyzing the various combinations will take about 10 million years..., even though it is assumed that the underlying technology speeds up by an order of magnitude each year.",,, Even with shortcuts like averaging, "any possible technological advance is overwhelmed by the relentless growth of interactions among all components of the system," Koch said. "It is not feasible to understand evolved organisms by exhaustively cataloging all interactions in a comprehensive, bottom-up manner." He described the concept of the Complexity Brake:,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/complexity_brak062961.html
note:
“The formation within geological time of a human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components.” Kurt Gödel, was a preeminent mathematician/logician who is considered one of the greatest to have ever lived. Of Note: Godel was a Christian Theist!
bornagain77
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT
So not only do you have no idea what you are talking about, Mung, but you also havent even bothered to research the topic? Sounds about right. Johnny, I already told you that intelligence does not directly correlate to cranial capacity, there is a lot more at play. Maybe intelligence really doesn't affect survival, after all youre still here. Have a nice day.AVS
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT
AVS @ 41 Seems there is no consensus that cranial capacity correlates with intelligence. And as for intelligence being selected for .... intelligent cultures have become extinct and aboriginal cultures exist to this day. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to survive !!! I think you would be wise to do some contemplating on natural selection. Is it rational to think that minor changes would make enough difference to be selected for? (meaning these genes become segregated enough to become fixed in a population)Johnnyfarmer
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
AVS is obviously unacquainted with the absolute paucity of hominid "fossils." I have to admit, I've never even seen a photograph of a hominid fossil. I have to wonder what "evidence" AVS has in mind.Mung
August 16, 2013
August
08
Aug
16
16
2013
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT
Phineas, I tried to walk through some of the very basics of the evidence for the evolution of man. There are many fossil species that have been extensively studied and carefully organized in a coherent order based on large amounts of data collection. I assure you, it is not just “well they look similar,” although Im sure they repeatedly tell you on here that that is how evolutionary biology works. Like I told Mung, if you want to learn science, get it from a reputable source. This is not a reputable source.AVS
August 16, 2013
August
08
Aug
16
16
2013
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT
No Phinehas, you have it all wrong. It is because you cannot recognize that they look like transitional species that evolution must be true.Mung
August 16, 2013
August
08
Aug
16
16
2013
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT
AVS:
I’ve no idea what you are talking about. If you cant look at the info on the numerous species of primates, especially the hominids, and say they look like transitional species then I dont know what to tell you.
Let me see if I've got this right. The incontrovertible evidence for evolution that you'd like to present here is that you can cherry pick various species of primates (based, no doubt, on the fact that they look similar) and conclude that "they look like transitional species." At the same time, it appears that you are taking for granted that morphological similarity is a sure indicator that a species is transitional. Is that about right?Phinehas
August 16, 2013
August
08
Aug
16
16
2013
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT
Great advice JDH. Sadly many, even seasoned scholars, never learn this. It requires a certain level of humility, patience and open mindedness, qualities these new atheist types seem to lack.humbled
August 16, 2013
August
08
Aug
16
16
2013
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
@AVS - AVS, I have been thinking, trying to figure out something to say to you that will help you without sounding condescending. Anyway here it is: You seem to suffer from an extreme form of confirmation bias: 1. You enthusiastically read many articles, books, anything you can get your hands on, that supports the position you agree with. You only respect people who state arguments you agree with. 2. You a priori dismiss as stupid and ignorant anything that disagrees with the position you agree with. You mock anyone who holds the contrary position. This is no way to become educated. To become educated you must hear the challenges to your position, and take them head on. Sometimes this will educate you about your position - and sometimes it will lead you to intelligently by the weight of the evidence, change your mind. Its dangerous, but it will keep you from staying in your current state of immaturity. I sincerely hope that helps. In humility, JDHJDH
August 16, 2013
August
08
Aug
16
16
2013
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
LMAO! AVS, buddy, not only do you engage in fallacy after fallacy, but your Neo-Darwinian arguments are sophomoric at best. The truly thoughtful ND proponents that visit the side, I would think, would view your paltry performance with shame. What is hilarious is you claim the responses to you are dodging 'facts' yet you can only respond to BornAgain with ad hominem, failing to address a single point with a cogent argument. Some might say, dodging. You're HILARIOUS, bro. You claim to be far more educated but engage in typical tactics (especially seen on the internet) of one who fills their lack of an argument, and information, with ridicule. A tactic that works on the slight of mind, however it betrays your own educational development. You mock BornAgain for the length of his post? That's clown-tactics, bro. You cannot refute his points so you mock any little thing you can grab, and the only refutation made is a strawman, and a poor one at that. Further, as more resist your little troll-bait you claim, "Whatever...Later." It is the internet equivalent of a white flag. This type of interaction is better suited to YouTube. So why would such an 'educated' individual employ such stereotypical and ignorant tactics? Oh, and if you respond with an insult claiming that "we are below you and don't deserve your best" you'll only prove my point further. Cheers.TSErik
August 16, 2013
August
08
Aug
16
16
2013
12:07 AM
12
12
07
AM
PDT
Whatever you say buddy, keep doing your little dance, but youre gonna have to find somebody else to have a philosophical argument with. Adios.AVS
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
10:45 PM
10
10
45
PM
PDT
Perfection isn't rigid, it depends on the specified design goals. If design goals change, then a new design or a modified existing one is warranted. Thinking about perfection and design in such rigid terms is an historical outgrowth of the Greek geometric concept of perfection. A biplane at first glance seems inferior to a jet, but only the biplane can be used for crop dusting. The comparison between living things and Human design things has nothing to do with complexity. It has to do with the fundamental aspects of what design is and how people develop designs. Saying that 'this thing is complex THEREFORE it isn't designed is hugely problematic. At best you could say 'it is complex and is not designed'. Otherwise, it would be impossible to say that the wedge and the airplane are both designed.Jul3s
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
10:38 PM
10
10
38
PM
PDT
So your god is constantly improving his design, is that what you think? Dont we, as humans, in our designs always try to come up with the most simple solution to a problem? I dont think anyone will tell you that much of the cell and especially the cell as a whole is simple at all. You cannot compare living things to inanimate objects like that. Thats another mistake you guys on here make all the time.AVS
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
10:23 PM
10
10
23
PM
PDT
Perhaps I wasn't clear. All the features of biological evolution are abundant in Human design. Do you go to car yard and expect that since they are designed, no transitional forms will ever be found?Jul3s
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
10:19 PM
10
10
19
PM
PDT
I've no idea what you are talking about. If you cant look at the info on the numerous species of primates, especially the hominids, and say they look like transitional species then I dont know what to tell you. That is all.AVS
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT
This is the logical fallacy known as the false dichotomy. The alternatives to "common descent with modification without any end-purpose" do not solely consist of 'coincidence'. This was already explained.Jul3s
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
10:13 PM
10
10
13
PM
PDT
So its just a coincidence that we have found numerous fossils that show a transition from ape-like to human-like features in different species of primates?AVS
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
10:10 PM
10
10
10
PM
PDT
That is an oversimplification, to be more complete, the evidence would be summarized as "primates existed and different primates have distinguishing features but also different degrees of similarity". This doesn't change the validity of my point as indicated in previous posts. Being able to tell the difference between different types of knowledge is extremely important.Jul3s
August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply