Here is a quote from atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel’s new book “Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False” (pp. 8-11), courtesy of Jonathan M:
“As I have said, doubts about the reductionist account of life go against the dominant scientific consensus, but that consensus faces problems of probability that I believe are not taken seriously enough, both with respect to the evolution of life forms through accidental mutation and natural selection and with respect to the formation from dead matter of physical systems capable of such evolution. The more we learn about the intricacy of the genetic code and its control of these chemical processes of life, the harder these problems seem.
Again: with regard to evolution, the process of natural selection cannot account for the actual history without an adequate supply of viable mutations, and I believe it remains an open question whether this could have been provided in geological time merely as a result of chemical accident, without the operation of some other factors determining and restricting the forms of genetic variation. It is no longer legitimate simply to imagine a sequence of gradually evolving phenotypes, as if their appearance through mutations in the DNA were unproblematic — as Richard Dawkins does for the evolution of the eye. With regard to the origin of life, the problem is much harder, since the option of natural selection as an explanation is not available. And the coming into existence of the genetic code — an arbitrary mapping of nucleotide sequences into amino acids, together with mechanisms that can read the code and carry out its instructions — seems particularly resistant to being revealed as probable given physical law alone.
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 from a religious perspective by the defenders of intelligent design. Even though writers like Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer are motivated at least in part by their religious beliefs, the empirical arguments they offer against the likelihood that the origin of life and its evolutionary history can be fully explained by physics and chemistry are of great interest in themselves. Another skeptic, David Berlinski, has brought out these problems vividly without reference to the design inference. Even if one is not drawn to the alternative of an explanation by the actions of a designer, the 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.
Those who have seriously criticized these arguments have certainly shown that there are ways to resist the design conclusion; but the general force of the negative part of the intelligent design position — skepticism about the likelihood of the orthodox reductive view, given the available evidence — does not appear to me to have been destroyed in these exchanges. At least, the question should be regarded as open. To anyone interested in the basis of this judgment, I can only recommend a careful reading of some of the leading advocates on both sides of the issue — with special attention to what has been established by the critics of intelligent design. Whatever one may think about the possibility of a designer, the prevailing doctrine — that the appearance of life from dead matter and its evolution through accidental mutation and natural selection to its present forms has involved nothing but the operation of physical law — cannot be regarded as unassailable. It is an assumption governing the scientific project rather than a well-confirmed scientific hypothesis.”
Now that’s an honest philosopher.
Filed under: News, Brain, Consciousness, Darwinism, DNA, Evolution, Free Will, Intelligent Design, Materialism, Mind, Mind and Cosmos, Naturalism, Philosophy of Mind, Reductionism, Thomas Nagel
It will be interesting to see how the naturalists respond to Nagel’s book. Being he’s a philosopher, they’ll likely attack his views as being non-scientific, thereby rendering his opinions worthless. I expect that since groups like the Discovery Institute have promoted the books release on their site that that particular hat tip to Nagel by DI will be enough to get his comments tossed to the curb. Too bad too, because the guy has given this some serious thought.
Just finished the book – it is available for the Kindle. The admissions he makes are profound. He states over and over that Darwinian Evolution cannot account for the complexity of life, consciousness, reason, and objective values and he explains why. He even suggests that whatever process does account for all of the above will contain purpose and include what he calls “proto-mental” elements.
The book is well worth the read.
I blogged about Nagel’s book and the demise of junk DNA – http://thejbomb.blogspot.com/2012/09/what-week-thomas-nagel-and-junk-dna.html