Philosopher Thomas Nagel disowning Darwinism

Speaking of Wallace, Darwin's co-theorist, about whom Michael Flannery has published a new book, Alfred Russel Wallace's Theory of Intelligent Evolution: How Wallace's World of Life Challenged Darwinism (Erasmus, 2009), philosopher Thomas Nagel reminds a friend of Wallace, in his skepticism of Darwinism in The View from Nowhere (1986). Echoing Darwin's contemporary, Alfred Russel Wallace, Nagel questions that the human intellect is explicable through Darwinian principles:

The question is whether not only the physical but the mental capacity needed to make a stone axe automatically brings with it the capacity to take each of the steps that have led from there to the construction of the hydrogen bomb, or whether an enormous excess mental capacity, not explainable by natural selection, was responsible for the generation and spread of the sequence of intellectual instruments that has emerged over the last thirty thousand years. This question is unforgettably posed by the stunning transformation of bone into spaceship in Stanley Kubrick's 2001.

I see no reason to believe that the truth lies in the first alternative. The only reason so many people believe it is that advanced intellectual capacities clearly exist, and this is the only available candidate for a Darwinian explanation of their existence. So it all rests on the assumption that every noteworthy characteristic of human beings, or of any other organism, must have a Darwinian explanation. But what is the reason to believe this? Even if natural selection explains all adaptive evolution, there may be developments in the history of species that are not specifically adaptive and can't be explained in terms of natural selection. Why not take the development of the human intellect as a probable counterexample to the law that natural selection explains everything, instead of forcing it under the law with improbable speculations unsupported by evidence? We have here one of those powerful reductionist dogmas which seem to be part of the intellectual atmosphere we breath.

What, I will be asked, is my alternative? Creationism? The answer is I don't have one, and I don't need one in order to reject all existing proposals as improbable. One should not assume that the truth about this matter has already been conceived of -- or hold onto a view just because no one can come up with a better alternative. Belief isn't like action. One doesn't have to believe anything, and to believe nothing is not to believe something" (pp. 80-81).

Top Ten Darwin and Design resources for 2009: #1

The biggest news, in my view, is that there is even a Top Ten. I myself cannot keep up with all the people who want me to look at their intelligent design projects. It's not that I don't care, but I am only one little old hack, and there are only so many hours in a day.

It's been difficult to keep journalists in this area; they tend to get scared off by aggressive Darwinists fronting their tax-funded, establishment line. And every weekend "relationships" news editor has endless time for "evolution" nonsense.

But word leaks out. As executive director Dennis Wagner comments, “I would never have predicted that an atheist [Thomas Nagel] would name a book about intelligent design as one of the top books of 2009, while another atheist [Bradley Monton] would write a book defending intelligent design? This is a sign that open minds in the academic and scientific communities are beginning to take the evidence for intelligent design seriously.”

Mind you, these two above mentioned are intelligent atheists. Nagel, for example, wrote the brilliant paper, "What is it like to be a bat?", exploring the mystery of animal minds. They restore my faith in human nature; I used to think all atheists were the sort of people who fill my In Box with vitriol - I had good reasons for thinking that, but it is not necessarily true as a consequence.

It's one thing not to believe in God; quite another to believe in the selfish gene, the Big Bazooms theory of human evolution, or how "evolution" explains why people vote for Sarah Palin or Al Gore.

So - ta-DA!! - here is the winner:

1.Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design by Stephen C. Meyer (Harper One, 2009). Stephen Meyer forcefully outlined the positive case for design and refuted arguments that ID isn't science in his seminal book, Signature in the Cell, published by HarperCollins in June of 2009. The book was named one of the top books of 2009 in the prestigious Times Literary Supplement (TLS) annual "Books of the Year" issue. The selection was made by prominent philosopher (and noted atheist) Thomas Nagel at New York University. A companion three minute animated video, Journey Inside the Cell was released providing a stunning visual illustration of Meyer's points.

[From Denyse: To me, the most significant thing about the book is that Harper One thought it worth taking a chance on. Harper One is a pretty big publisher and assumes that the books it signs have a wide audience. Clearly, lots of people are beginning to guess that Darwinism is the General Motors of biology. Yes, it is big, but today only government bailouts keep it going. The challenge for design theorists today is not to keep one step ahead of the Darwin inquisition or even to gain a hearing but to explain what design offers.

PS: Harper One also published The Spiritual Brain by Beauregard and - ahem - O’Leary, a comprehensive survey of the dead end of materialist neuroscience. I regularly get letters from people thanking us for helping them understand, in a publishing universe where two-neuron you-neuron nonsense had become the normal fare.]

The #2 pick is here.

(Note: These are the key books, not science or media news. The Top Ten Darwin and Design Science News Stories for 2009 are here, and my comments are here, the Top Ten Darwin and Design Media News Stories for 2009 are here, and my comments on the latter are here. Also, to get the links, you must go here.)

Darwinism and academic culture: Mathematician Jeffrey Shallit weighs in

You can tell that Darwinism is failing when it attracts completely ridiculous attacks like
this one, on Signature in the Cell (Harper One, 2009). The gist of Shallit's complaint is that Nagel thought Meyer's book a prize.* But Shallit says,

Meyer claims, over and over again, that information can only come from a mind -- and that claim is an absolutely essential part of his argument. Nagel, the brilliant philosopher, should see why that is false. Consider making a weather forecast. Meteorologists gather information about the environment to do so: wind speed, direction, temperature, cloud cover, etc. It is only on the basis of this information that they can make predictions. What mind does this information come from?

What mind indeed? If we experience either snow or dull, freezing rain here tomorrow, why should I be surprised? This is the season officially known as winter.

So, maybe Nagel, the brilliant philosopher, knows more than Shallit, the University of Waterloo prof.

I thought Thomas Nagel's discussion of animal mind, in "What is it like to be a bat?" was the best of its type, in elucidating the difficulties of a materialist explanation of mind. I would commend it to all.

For example, the information that explains how the butterfly emerges from the mess of the pupa, after the caterpillar has done its bit by constantly eating leaves, is vastly more complex than the information that explains why rain falls or snow blankets. We seek an explanation for metamorphosis, not for why rain or snow falls.

Here is an example:



So how is the trick done inside the "magic box" of the pupa? As one biologist told me, "The entire caterpillar dissolves, and is reconstructed as a butterfly." The stored energy from the caterpillar's voracious eating habits creates that? ... ridiculous. Let's hear more explanations, and subject them to tests, based on the life of the universe.

*Signature in the Cell (Harper One, 2009) was indeed literally a prize at Uncommon Descent recently. I hope for more copies soon, for more contests and more prizes.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Intelligent design and high culture: Philosopher says teaching students about intelligent design should be okay

Okay with some qualifications, that is.

Philosopher Thomas Nagel of New York University is probably best known publicly for his 1974 essay, "What is it like to be a bat?" (He was writing against reductionism in thinking about animal minds.)

Now, in "Public Education and Intelligent Design" in Philosophy & Public Affairs (pp. 187-2005), Nagel, an atheist, stirs the pot again:

The political urge to defend science education against the threats of religious orthodoxy, understandable though it is, has resulted in a counterorthodoxy, supported by bad arguments, and a tendency to overstate the legitimate scientific claims of evolutionary theory.

You'd think Nagel was referring to the Michael Reiss affair, but he can't be, because the essay came out before Brit Reiss was forced to resign.

It would be unfortunate if the Establishment Clause made it unconstitutional to allude to these questions in a public school biology class, for that would mean that evolutionary theory cannot be taught in an intellectually responsible way.

Actually, if the Reiss affair in Britain or similar incidents in North America are any guide, teaching evolutionary theory" in an intellectually responsible way" is not in fact an education establishment goal. He reflects on the odd situation that arguments against design are considered quite legitimate but not arguments for it. Why is that?:

The contention seems to be that, although science can demonstrate the falsehood of the design hypothesis, no evidence against that demonstration can be regarded as scientific support for the hypothesis. Only the falsehood, and not the truth, of ID can count as a scientific claim.

This, he says, creates a dilemma:

The denier that ID is science faces the following dilemma. Either he admits that the intervention of such a designer is possible, or he does not. If he does not, he must explain why that belief is more scientific than the belief that a designer is possible. If on the other hand he believes that a designer is possible, then he can argue that the evidence is overwhelmingly against the actions of such a designer, but he cannot say that someone who offers evidence on the other side is doing something of a fundamentally different kind. All he can say about that person is that he is scientifically mistaken.

and

Critics take issue with the claims made by defenders of ID about what standard evolutionary mechanisms can accomplish, and argue that they depend on faulty assumptions. Whatever the merits, however, that is clearly a scientific disagreement, not a disagreement between science and something else. ... It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the two sides are in symmetrical positions. If one scientist is a theist and another an atheist, this is either a scientific or a nonscientific disagreement between them. If it is scientific (supposing this is possible), then their disagreement is scientific all the way down. If it is not a scientific disagreement, and if this difference in their nonscientific beliefs about the antecedent possibilities affects their rational interpretation of the same empirical evidence, I do not see how we can say that one is engaged in science and the other is not. Either both conclusions are rendered nonscientific by the influence of their nonscientific assumptions, or both are scientific in spite of those assumptions.

In the latter case, they have a scientific disagreement that cannot be settled by scientific reasoning alone. ...

So then with respect to discussing intelligent design in a classroom, he asks,

What would a biology course teach if it wanted to remain neutral on the question whether divine intervention in the process of life’s development was a possibility, while acknowledging that people disagree about whether it should be regarded as a possibility at all, or what probability should be assigned to it, and that there is at present no way to settle that disagreement scientifically? So far as I can see, the only way to make no assumptions of a religious nature would be to admit that the empirical evidence may suggest different conclusions depending on what religious belief one starts with, and that the evidence does not by itself settle which of those beliefs is correct, even though there are other religious beliefs, such as the literal truth of Genesis, that are easily refuted by the evidence. I do not see much hope that such an approach could be adopted, but it would combine intellectual responsibility with respect for the Establishment Clause.

This sounds a lot like "teach the controversy" to me.

Nagel makes clear at various points* that he thinks that the Darwin fans have oversold their theory. Which they have. All around me, "icons of evolution" are tumbling (another one just came down the other day) ....

Basically, in order to keep serious discussion of evidence for design from surfacing, the fans must imply to the public that vastly more evidence exists for the standard Darwinian view of the history of life than actually does exist - and all discussion of the quality of evidence must be suppressed. And for the very good reason that once we get rid of the bad or questionable evidence, there is only a little good evidence. Not enough to justify Expelling scientists who doubt.

Here is the article behind a paywall, but you may be able to read it through a library subscription. Here is lawyer Ed Sisson's view.

*For example, he writes,

My own situation is that of an atheist who, in spite of being an avid consumer of popular science, has for a long time been skeptical of the claims of traditional evolutionary theory to be the whole story about the history of life. ... Sophisticated members of the contemporary culture have been so thoroughly indoctrinated that they easily lose sight of the fact that evolutionary reductionism defies common sense. A theory that defies common sense can be true, but doubts about its truth should be suppressed only in the face of exceptionally strong evidence.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Signature in the Cell: Darwinist demands to rewrite product copy

But why should that be a surprise? Of course, Darwinists don't want anyone to read Signature in the Cell. Darwinism is a tax-funded origins cult, especially noxious in countries like the United States and Canada, which do not have and - for good reasons* - do not want established religions.

Yes, I have in my files a recent brownbagged letter, written to Amazon by a Darwinist, demanding that the editorial description of Signature be altered to reflect Darwinist bias.

Some useless flunky actually assured the Darwinist that these changes would indeed be made.

When I protested, I received an insulting e-mail assuring me that the 'Zon guys understand that I might be upset, but that Amazon does not "support or promote hatred or criminal acts."

Upset? That doesn't cover the half of it.

I am a Canadian free speech journalist. A minor one to be sure but we have been kicking butt up and down the country with benighted sons of ditches like him, and their arrogant bosses.

I have had a good relationship with the 'Zon over the years, and sold many books for them. But ... if they cave to some aggrieved Darwin scammer - just another tax burden, really - I am transferring all my business to Barnes & Noble, and I recommend that all good citizens do the same.

It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree with me about Darwinism. Why on earth should these people have dictatorial rights over a private company's business?

Oh wait, if you are a Darwinist, maybe you know that you are right, and you should rule, and that no one must be permitted to simply publish a book showing that your theories are inadequate to nature.

Well then, the remaining good citizens must step into the breach.

*For one thing, countries tend to be more religious when the government avoids meddling. That's why religious people here want the government out of religion. Except for Darwinists, who need to impose their unbelievable beliefs by law.

Anika Smith at the Discovery Institute also advises me that Meyer is World Magazine's Daniel of the Year. I'm not sure how helpful that is. Basically, Darwinism is wrong no matter what one's religion, unless it is atheistic materialism - in which case Darwinism is the only game in town, and tax-funded to boot. But re Daniels, I submit to more experienced judgement.

Also, from Evolution News and Views:

The continued success of Signature In The Cell has driven Darwinists crazy. They’re desperately making louder and ever more ridiculous denunciations of the book and anyone who might have the temerity to suggest people read it for themselves.

An interesting and informative back and forth has been taking place on the pages of the Times Literary Supplement, where last month noted atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel recommended SITC as one of the best books of the year. Not surprisingly, he was attacked (he responded, and he was attacked again) by a Darwinist who told people forgo reading SITC and instead just read Wikipedia. Is this what passes for civil discourse on important topics now? Just ignore the arguments you don't like? A pretty pathetic state of affairs if true.

Go here for the rest and for the links.

Never mind what you think of Darwinism. If you think that 'crats are not smart enough to run your life and do all your thinking for you - join the revolution now.

Go here for intellectual freedom news from Canada.

More on BioLogos ...

Here, Tribune asks "What problem does Collins have with ID," in response to my post on his new venture BioLogos, "US government genome mapper Francis Collins fronts new BioLogos theory, preferred to “theistic evolution”"

Well, first, truth in advertising, I have written three reviews of Collins's book, The Language of God, two of which were quite favourable, and the third more thoughtful and critical. The first two merely recommend to book as suitable for a student at Christmas, for example, and I would stand by that. If the student comes home raving that he is an atheist because all scientists are, well, Collins thinks otherwise, is famous, and is an easy read.

But while Collins is an outstanding geneticist, I don't find him a deep thinker in these matters. So I am not sure how fruitful it would be to worry about what bothers him individually about ID, in an age when even an atheist like Bradley Monton thinks ID discussable and another atheist, Thomas Nagel, thinks ID discussable in schools.*

I am glad that, as others have noted, he isn't misrepresenting ID as a "God of the gaps" theory (= we can't understand it, so God dunit), when ID is about what we do understand (design). I assume that that is a sign of his good character.

The BioLogos project seems an effort to protect theistic evolution from the charge of practical atheism, by invoking Scripture. I do not think that will work, but I can certainly see how Christian clergy and scientists of a certain generation and religious preference would embrace it.

Theistic evolution got started in an age when it looked like Darwin was right, and people wanted to hang on to their faith. They professed that one could be a Christian and a Darwinist without paying any attention to the fact that it didn't work for Darwin and Darwin's aim was explicitly contrary to theirs, as he made clear to Wallace and Asa Gray.

But now it looks like he was wrong or doubtful, so theistic evolution is an answer to a problem that doesn't exist. However, so much has been written in its defense and so many careers built on it that we must not expect it to just go away.

I would predict instead that there will be more efforts like Biologos, as theistic evolutionists try to position themselves in relation to current evidence.

*For the record, as a curriculum writer and sometime advisor, I would say that anything should be discussable in schools if the students actually care about it. Making the teacher or the curriculum irrelevant to students' true concerns is not the way to educate. Not every student who thinks school a waste of time has been wrong, unfortunately.

More quick posts: Recent events in the intelligent design controversy

Still a bit behind here, so I can only quickly link recent events of interest:

- Martin Cothran over at the vere loqui blog points out that:

Richard Dawkin's website is running down Patrick Henry College, questioning its students' ability to think critically. But, apparently, whoever is running the website forgot an important fact: Patrick Henry's debate team has defeated Oxford (where Dawkins teaches) two years in a row. Who is it that can't think critically?

- Todd Norquist writes me to say:

In his debate with Stephen C. Meyer, U. of WA paleontologist Peter Ward announced that $100 million dollars endows Harvard's ''Origins of Life in the Universe Initiative."

Todd, that's a lot of cheese whiz, ... $100 million. Norquist cautions that, er, that cheque may not yet have been cut. He goes on to remark:

Seriously now-THIS IS GOOD NEWS-the more rigorously Harvard designs its OOL science, the more obviously evidences consonant with I D will surface-just as nearly every advance in astrobiology [however strained the project's metaphysics] buttresses the Privileged Planet hypothesis. Somewhere in this project, for example, someone may be honest enough to take a mathematical or experimental crack [or 2, or 90] at one of the information problems. Heck, biologists are commonly ignorant of the even the polypeptide impasse, not to mention chemical hurdles, such as cytosine's synthesis (David Berlinski delightfully surveys OoL research. I recently heard a Gonzaga bio prof publicly declare: "We now know, by the laws of chemistry, how life started." Harvard, yes-by any and all means-do try and get a life. Let the serious bench science-and publishing-begin!

Well, I hope it isn't just a bunch of boondoggles in the Galapagos. We'll see.


- From Muslim ID advocate: Turkish Minister Supports Intelligent Design

In a recent TV debate on the Turkish educational system, the country's Minister of Education, Mr. Hüseyin Çelik** argued in favor of intelligent design and for incorporating the theory into Turkish high school biology textbooks. The debate was aired on CNNTurk* on 17 October 2006, on the popular TV show Tarafsiz Bölge (Neutral Zone), which is hosted by the trendy Turkish journalist Ahmet Hakan Coskun.

During the 2.5 hour-long program, the minister was challenged by another leading journalist, Ismet Berkan, who has previously argued for Darwinism and against ID in his columns. Berkan contended that the vague reference to "creation" in Turkish biology textbooks as an alternative to Darwinian evolution should be omitted, since it presents faith, not science. Minister Çelik responded by pointing that the idea of creation is not necessarily based on religious texts and that it can be based solely on objective evidence and the latter is what Turkish textbooks refer to. Moreover he gave a brief description of ID, by quoting an op-ed piece of mine — that was, interestingly enough, published in the newspaper that Mr. Berkan edits (Radikal) — and argued that it should be in Turkish textbooks as an alternative theory to Darwinian evolution. The 15-min discussion between Minister Çelik and Mr. Berkan is available in audio, albeit only in Turkish.

So, watch out. ID might become a part of science standards soon in unexpected places…

* CNNTurk is a joint-venture of CNN International and the Dogan Media Group, Turkey's no. 1 media empire. It is one of the two most prestigious and popular newschannels in Turkey.
** Mr. Çelik is a member of the incumbent AKP, Turkey's moderate Muslim party.

O'Leary's question: Will we soon see a Turkish franchise of the American National Center for Science Education, just like the British franchise, British Center for Science Education? That should send the controversy right into hyperspace! Those people have a genius for helping ID everywhere they go.

- Thomas Nagel, a top Anglo-American philosopher, slams Richard Dawkins’The God Delusion in The New Republic.

Since Dawkins is operating mostly outside the range of his scientific expertise, it is not surprising that The God Delusion lacks the superb instructive lucidity of his books on evolutionary theory, such as The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and Climbing Mount Improbable. In this new book I found that kind of pleasure only in the brief explanation of why the moth flies into the candle flame--an example introduced to illustrate how a useful trait can have disastrous side effects. (Dawkins believes the prevalence of religion among human beings is a side effect of the useful trust of childhood.)

I’m getting bored with Dawkins, plus ten, and think he has both peaked and tanked, but thought I should pass this on anyway. A moth that got religion would certainly fly out of the candle and then go on to testify on prophecy TV, right?

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

My U of Toronto talk on why there is an intelligent design controversy, or my talk on media coverage of the controversy att he University of Minnesota.

A summary of tech guru George Gilder's arguments for ID and against Darwinism

A critical look at why March of the Penguins was thought to be an ID film.

A summary of recent opinion columns on the ID controversy

A summary of recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy

A summary of the Catholic Church's entry into the controversy, essentially on the side of ID.

O'Leary's intro to non-Darwinian agnostic philosopher David Stove’s critique of Darwinism.

An ID Timeline: The ID folk seem always to win when they lose.

O’Leary’s comments on Francis Beckwith, a Dembski associate, being granted tenure at Baylor after a long struggle - even after helping in a small way to destroy the Baylor Bears' ancient glory - in the opinion of a hyper sportswriter.

Why origin of life is such a difficult problem.

Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated. Fully anonymous posts and URLs posted without comment are rarely accepted. To Mr. Anonymous: I'm not psychic, so if you won't tell me who you are, I can't guess and don't care. To Mr. Nude World (URL): If you can't be bothered telling site visitors why they should go on to your fave site next, why should I post your comment? They're all busy people, like you. To Mr. Rudeby International and Mr. Pottymouth: I also have a tendency to delete comments that are merely offensive. Go be offensive to someone who can smack you a good one upside the head. That may provide you with a needed incentive to stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors. There's already enough widely repeated misinformation out there, and if you don't have the time to do your homework, I don't either. To those who write to announce that at death I will either 1) disintegrate into nothingness or 2) go to Hell by a fast post, please pester someone else. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and haven't the time for either village atheism or aimless Jesus-hollering.