Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Philosopher Thomas Nagel’s Darwin-doubting book “most despised” of 2012?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Mark Vernon of The Guardian explains the crimes of Mind & Cosmos and adds:

Disparagement is particularly unfair, though, because the book is a model of carefulness, sobriety and reason. If reading Sheldrake feels daring, Tallis thrilling and Fodor worthwhile but hard work, reading Nagel feels like opening the door on to a tidy, sunny room that you didn’t know existed. It is as if his heart said to his head, I can’t help but feel that materialist reductionism isn’t right. And his head said to his heart, OK: let’s take a fresh look. So what caused the offence?

Several things, but consider one: the contention that evolution may tend towards consciousness. Nagel is explicit that he himself is not countenancing a designer. Rather, he wonders whether science needs to entertain the possibility that a teleological trend is immanent in nature.

But that’s enough to hang him right then and there.

According to James Kushiner at Salvo, it gets way worse:

Nagel sees serious “problems of probability.” Then he commits his second sin:

In thinking about these questions, I have been stimulated by criticisms of the prevailing scientific world picture from a very different direction: the attack on Darwinism mounted in recent years . . . by the defenders of intelligent design. . . . [T]he problems that these iconoclasts pose for the orthodox scientific consensus should be taken seriously. They do not deserve the scorn with which they are commonly met. It is manifestly unfair.

It gets worse. Nagel also tells his readers that “the defenders of intelligent design deserve our gratitude.”

Maybe they should hang his laptop too. And his hat.

Comments
This, which was ignored by E. Liddle from another post: E. Liddle said: “Modelling the expected distribution under some kind of process in which each “draw” is independent from prior “draws” is clearly not a model of Darwinian processes.” Bpragmatic responded: I don’t believe that in the OOL phase of “evolution”, the laws of physics and chemistry (darwinian processes are beholding to) would be anywhere near as charitable to the material formation requirements as would “independent draws” as you seem to imply with the above statement. In fact I would propose that there is a clear cut scientific case for asserting that some sort of guiding intelligence is required to overcome the IMPOSSIBILITY of certain component relationships from developing guideded purely by the laws of physics and chemical reactions. Liddles response: NOTHING. Why deal with reality questions when you can continue to pull the "discussions" down the rabbit trail to nowhere. Especially when it achieves the personal goals of: ????? Lizzy, come clean. You have no clue when it comes to applying your alleged "expertise" regarding probabilities and mathematical conclusions towards requirements of OOL. I know that if you don not respond to my statements, it might be because you think you have "bigger fish to fry". I really dont know. But, if you can respond to this post in a way that scietifically supports your position, I am looking forward to that. I hope your sink is clean. Another question: Can the paid nde propoganda machine come up with some one who can really demonstrate valid arguable positions on these issues?bpragmatic
July 3, 2013
July
07
Jul
3
03
2013
10:20 PM
10
10
20
PM
PDT
I have to laugh. Creationism didn't budge me and millions of others who are now interested the snowballing ID project. I had no interest in the evolution debate way back in 2000, but have given financial support to 3 different ID organizations over the years. I don't see creationism having a snowball's chance with influencing the intelligentsia. Plus I myself have gotten skeptical or "on the fence" educated folks to open up at in person conversations and who now follow the debate, and it was the ID stance that I used to do so.groovamos
July 3, 2013
July
07
Jul
3
03
2013
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT
Creationists should be careful about needing others to justify our conclusions. We don't need Nagel! His tip of the hat to ID should have no more force then giving ID a negative salut. Its on the merits. YEC is confident. ID pretty confident about some things. Mr Nagel should articulate clearly who's right or wrong! God and Genesis never was displaced by the ideas and conclusions of obscure small circles in origin research. Its a myth. Its up to Nagel to prove evolution is true and a theory of science to boot. Its up to Nagel to prove its not obvious complexity is too complex for simple cause and effect. Our immune system or the solar system is not a result of unguided accidents. We simply need more iD and authors to introduce and persuade the more thoughtful public. The rest will follow easily as usual. Don't give any credit of the coming victory to non creationists.Robert Byers
July 3, 2013
July
07
Jul
3
03
2013
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT
Nagel also tells his readers that “the defenders of intelligent design deserve our gratitude.”
The converse point also holds: that if it weren't for the intelligent design movement, Nagel's book wouldn't have been regarded as a major bomb-shell. The ripple-effects of the movement have really altered how his views are regarded by 'the republic of letters,' and now that so much intellectual culture is on-line and hyper-connected, the ripple-effects intensify -- one page links to the next, and the next, and . . . I don't think Nagel's views have really changed since his 1974 "What is like to be a bat?", which these days is only taught in undergraduate courses in introduction to philosophy and philosophy of mind. (I've used it in both courses.) But Nagel's Mind and Cosmos has had a huge impact. So he ought to be as grateful to you as you are to him!Kantian Naturalist
July 3, 2013
July
07
Jul
3
03
2013
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply