╌>

Atheist Professor: Intelligent Design Arguments Should 'Be Taken Seriously'

  

Category:  Health, Science & Technology

Via:  mbfc-censorship  •  6 years ago  •  82 comments

Atheist Professor: Intelligent Design Arguments Should 'Be Taken Seriously'
"We find it encouraging that philosophers like Nagel, and even some secular scientists today, are using their critical thinking ability and are recognizing the massive scientific problems with Darwinian evolution," said Looy. "It is not often we come across atheists who are willing to look carefully into arguments that challenge their worldview, and then take the next step of making their views known in a public way."

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



In a soon-to-be released book, an atheist professor has argued that the critiques of the Theory of Evolution by intelligent design defenders should "be taken seriously."

evolution.jpg?w=262 A woman walks beside an exhibit displaying the evolution of humans, at the Darwin\'s Evolution Exhibition in the Calouste Gulbenkina Foundation in Lisbon February 12, 2009. | (Photo: REUTERS/Jose Manuel Ribeiro)

Thomas Nagel, professor at the Department of Philosophy at New York University, argued this in a book titled Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False .

"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," wrote Nagel in chapter one.

"I believe the defenders of intelligent design deserve our gratitude for challenging a scientific world view that owes some of the passion displayed by its adherents precisely to the fact that it is thought to liberate us from religion."

Mark Looy, co-founder and chief communications officer for Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum, told The Christian Post that a book like Nagel's is welcomed to the debate.

"We find it encouraging that philosophers like Nagel, and even some secular scientists today, are using their critical thinking ability and are recognizing the massive scientific problems with Darwinian evolution," said Looy.

"It is not often we come across atheists who are willing to look carefully into arguments that challenge their worldview, and then take the next step of making their views known in a public way."

Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association, told The Christian Post that he felt the book was merely a "philosopher's musings."

"Scientists are still exploring the mechanisms of evolution and fine tuning our understanding of the process of natural selection, but there aren't serious competing models, nor is there likely to be among scientists of any stature," said Speckhardt.

"To try to counter the enormous evidence that exists in support of our general understanding of the evolutionary process would take more than a philosopher's musings which is all this book is."

Michael Zimmerman, founder and executive director of The Clergy Letter Project, told The Christian Post that he felt Nagel's argument wrongly tried to remove materialism from the scientific method.

"Materialism is central to science, though, and you can't get away from it," said Zimmerman, whose organization seeks to promote Evolution Theory as sound science and compatible with religious belief.

"To posit that there is something beyond the material that is responsible for the patterns we see, whether that be mind or anything else, takes us well beyond science."

When asked about what impact the book could have on the origins debate, Zimmerman told CP that he felt that Nagel's views would not influence the direction of the issue.

"Promoting intelligent design will not, in any way, influence the creation-evolution debate because intelligent design has been categorically found to be an intellectual dead end," said Zimmerman.

"The beauty and power of science is that it makes absolutely no difference what the personal beliefs of a person positing an idea are; the idea has to stand on its own."

Looy, on the other hand, told CP that Answers in Genesis hoped that Minds and Cosmos  would do much to influence the creation-evolution debate.

"AiG hopes that the book, put out by a prestigious publisher, will encourage many evolutionists to reconsider their belief system and will also cause them to examine the research that AiG and other groups have done in support of creation," said Looy.

Published by Oxford University Press, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False  by Thomas Nagel will be released in September.



Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1  seeder  XXJefferson51    6 years ago

“Looy, on the other hand, told CP that Answers in Genesis hoped that Minds and Cosmos would do much to influence the creation-evolution debate.

"AiG hopes that the book, put out by a prestigious publisher, will encourage many evolutionists to reconsider their belief system and will also cause them to examine the research that AiG and other groups have done in support of creation,"

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Participates
3  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu     6 years ago

My"problem" with evolution alone is why do we still have most of what we supposingly evolved from still here with the evolved ? 

Whatever arranged the atoms to be all that they are is what I consider GOD. Anyway it happened by any means. 

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
3.1  Dig  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @3    6 years ago
My"problem" with evolution alone is why do we still have most of what we supposingly evolved from still here with the evolved ?

Not exactly sure what you mean. Every organism will have genetic differences compared to its ancestors, simply because mutations never stop occurring. Differences in some organisms may be slight and not immediately obvious in the organism's phenotype, but in other organisms the differences are huge.

Or was your question a version of the old, "If humans evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys" argument? If that's the case, then the simplest and most generic answer would be some kind of population separation causing reproductive isolation, leading to genetic differentiation down more than one line of descent.

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Participates
3.1.1  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  Dig @3.1    6 years ago

Anyway it happened by any means. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
4  bbl-1    6 years ago

"Intelligent Design?"

It is already here.  Being built and perfected in labs.

Creationism?  If 'god' created it all----where was he standing when ( he/she ) did it?

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Participates
4.1  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  bbl-1 @4    6 years ago
If 'god' created it all----where was he standing when ( he/she ) did it?

Perhaps we are standing in and are GOD both the creator and the creation. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
4.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @4.1    6 years ago

Perhaps not?

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Participates
4.1.2  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  bbl-1 @4.1.1    6 years ago
Perhaps not?

Perhaps 

Who knows ? 

Not I. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1.3  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @4.1.2    6 years ago

Know one knows for sure.  Whether we are advocates of creation science or intelligent design theory or evolution pseudoscience quackery, we have to take key elements of any of them on faith as it’s impossible for any of us here on earth now to know it all for certain.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
4.1.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1.3    6 years ago
evolution pseudoscience quackery,

I thought you said that was censorship.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
4.1.5  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1.3    6 years ago
Know one knows for sure.  Whether we are advocates of creation science or intelligent design theory or evolution pseudoscience quackery, we have to take key elements of any of them on faith as it’s impossible for any of us here on earth now to know it all for certain.  

A person can no more do research for Creation Science than you can hire a detective to find the Easter Bunny.  First something must be proven to exist before you can do research or search for them and Intelligent Design,Creationism or Genesis is a religious myth.  Anthropologists can study the myth of Genesis to find where it started by you logically cannot study what doesn't exist.  Your religious beliefs do not make something  no matter how diligent that you claim that you might believe. Science doesn't work that way.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1.6  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.4    6 years ago

I’m no longer talking to you here.  

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
4.1.7  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1.6    6 years ago
I’m no longer talking to you here.  

Can I get this same deal, or did that offer expire at midnight EST?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
4.1.8  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1.3    6 years ago
Whether we are advocates of creation science or intelligent design theory or evolution pseudoscience quackery, we have to take key elements of any of them on faith as it’s impossible for any of us here on earth now to know it all for certain.

The difference is, evolution has objective, empirical evidence to support it and is regarded as a valid scientific theory in credible scientific circles. Creationism and ID (they're the same thing) do not and is not.

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
5  Dig    6 years ago

This book has been   lambasted  repeatedly , especially by biologists, but by other philosophers as well.

Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne wrote about it a couple of times on his blog (which I follow). In a January 2013 post he had this to say:

Among Nagel’s claims are that evolution is wrong because:
  1. We don’t understand the origin of life
  2. We don’t understand the evolution of consciousness (is this list starting to sound familiar?)
  3. There are objective factors about morality, and evolution can’t explain them (Nagel is what philosophers call a “moral realist”)
  4. A reductionist and materialist program won’t suffice to understand evolution, ergo
  5. There is a missing factor, and that factor is teleology. That is, evolution is directed toward certain goals (e.g., consciousness) by a process we don’t understand
Now Nagel is not religious—he’s an atheist—so his teleology can’t involve a god. Instead, he apparently posits an unknown force that drives organisms onward and upward.

Next, Coyne quotes some of the criticism. Here's an example:

Nagel’s teleological biology is heavily human-centric or at least animal-centric. Organisms, it seems, are in the business of secreting sentience, reason, and values. Real biology looks little like this and, from the outset, must face the staggering facts of organismal diversity. There are millions of species of fungi and bacteria and nearly 300,000 species of flowering plants. None of these groups is sentient and each is spectacularly successful. Indeed mindless species outnumber we sentient ones by any sensible measure (biomass, number of individuals, or number of species; there are only about 5,500 species of mammals). More fundamentally, each of these species is every bit as much the end product of evolution as we are. The point is that, if nature has goals, it certainly seems to have many and consciousness would appear to be fairly far down on the list.

[Coyne] In fact, bacteria are still with us after billions of years, and they show no sign of a brain yet!

[Coyne] Allen’s conclusion about the value of Nagel’s teleology is measured and accurate:

The question, then, is not whether teleology is formally compatible with the practice of science. The question is whether the practice of science leads to taking teleology seriously. Nagel may find this question unfair. He is, he says, engaging in a “philosophical task,” not the “internal pursuit of science.” But it seems clear that he is doing more than this. He’s emphasizing purported “empirical reasons” for finding neo-Darwinism “almost certainly false” and he’s suggesting the existence of new scientific laws. These represent moves, however halting, into science proper. But science, finally, isn’t about defining the space of all formally possible explanations of nature. It’s about inference to the most likely hypothesis. And on these grounds there’s simply no comparison between neo-Darwinism (for which there is overwhelming evidence) and natural teleology (for which there is none). While one might complain that it’s unfair to stack up the empirical successes of neo-Darwinism with those of a new theory, this, again, gets the history wrong. Teleology is the traditional view; neo-Darwinism is the new kid on the block.

More at Coyne's blog post .

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6  TᵢG    6 years ago
Thomas Nagel, professor at the Department of Philosophy at New York University ...

The title 'professor' does not mean the individual is an expert in every field in which s/he opines.   So let's establish that this is an intelligent man who has opinions about a vast, complex area of science and he is not even close to being even a scientist.

Guess I need not add anything else given Dig @5.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
6.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @6    6 years ago

Yes.  This philosopher is opining on questions outside of his area of expertise.  He should know better.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.1    6 years ago

Almost everyone here does that on most any given topic here.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
6.1.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.1    6 years ago

We're not being cited as experts.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.3  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.1    6 years ago

He has the right to opine on any subject that he wants to opine about.  He was 100% right on regarding his book on the topic of creation science vs evolution dogmatists.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
6.1.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.3    6 years ago

He shouldn't put himself forth as an expert.  To do so is dishonest, as is passing off myth as science.

Creationism is myth.

Adherence to belief in the absence of evidence is dogma

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.5  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.1.4    6 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.3    6 years ago
He has the right to opine on any subject that he wants to opine about.

Of course he does.   And others have the right to point out flaws in his arguments, his facts and note his weak credentials as an expert in this field.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
6.1.8  sandy-2021492  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.5    6 years ago

You have a very strange idea regarding what constitutes censorship.  Pointing out "science" that isn't really science at all is not censorship.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.9  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.1.8    6 years ago

[Deleted]  Then it crosses the threshold into pure intended bigotry

[Repeated engagement in meta will result in the assignment of points toward suspension.]

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
6.1.10  cjcold  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.1.2    6 years ago

Most that C4P cites as experts are bought by the far right Heartland Institute.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.11  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  cjcold @6.1.10    6 years ago

Interesting your fixation with that particular all American think tank.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.12  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.1.8    6 years ago
(deleted)
 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
6.1.13  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.12    6 years ago
Yes, it really is.  

No, it really isn't. it's pointing out something ("creation science" or ID) that is at best dishonest or fraudulent. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.14  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.13    6 years ago

The interesting that a moderator can delete a comment that directly disagrees with her comment as a regular member.  Thanks for quoting it.  And I stand by it.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.15  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  cjcold @6.1.10    6 years ago

What’s a C4P?  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
6.1.16  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.14    6 years ago
The interesting that a moderator can delete a comment that directly disagrees with her comment as a regular member.  

Then your issue is with a moderator. but if you have such an issue with it, I'm sure there are plenty of religiously based discussion sites that love a theistic and/or anti-scientific echo chamber.

 And I stand by it.  

And I stand by my statement too.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
6.2  epistte  replied to  TᵢG @6    6 years ago
The title 'professor' does not mean the individual is an expert in every field in which s/he opines.   So let's establish that this is an intelligent man who has opinions about a vast, complex area of science and he is not even close to being even a scientist. Guess I need not add anything else given Dig @ 5 .

This entire situation is an argument from authority fallacy. 

Description of the argument from authority

Generally, the argument from authority or false authority,  is an argument from an authority, but on a topic outside of the particular authority’s expertise or on a topic on which the authority is not disinterested (i.e., is biased). The argument is considered conditionally fallacious, because an appeal to authority may be appropriate. 

In order for the argument from authority to be considered a logical fallacy, the argument must appeal to the authority because of their qualifications, and not because of their evidence in the argument. Moreover, the argument can be fallacious if the authority lacks actual qualifications in the field being discussed.

In discussions about vaccines, the anti-vaccine side will often promote individuals who appear to have appropriate credentials, such as an MD, as advocates for their beliefs. However, if this MD rejects the obvious scientific consensus on vaccines, without an equivalent amount  of evidence, then it is considered a fallacy.

It’s the argument and evidence that matters, not the credentials of the arguer. Wikipedia has an interesting policy called “ Ignore all credentials .” Their reasoning is that the only thing that matters in creating a neutral point of view (which values reliable evidence over opinions and arguments) are credible citations that support a statement.

This book is 5 years old and it has been dissected in higher education,

 
 
 
nightwalker
Sophomore Silent
7  nightwalker    6 years ago

This guy is going to make a pile of money, creationists will gobble this book up, indisputable proof at last.  I'm sure we'll be hearing quotes from his book being presented as fact. And of course, miss-quotes, false quotes, and "what he MEANT by that was..)

Cool. I won't have to spend any of my money on that book.

jrSmiley_4_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
7.1  epistte  replied to  nightwalker @7    6 years ago
This guy is going to make a pile of money, creationists will gobble this book up, indisputable proof at last.  I'm sure we'll be hearing quotes from his book being presented as fact. And of course, miss-quotes, false quotes, and "what he MEANT by that was..) Cool. I won't have to spend any of my money on that book.

If I had anytinterest at all in this book 99% of the time I can find it in the library system for free.  That might be more than it is worth.

 
 
 
nightwalker
Sophomore Silent
7.1.1  nightwalker  replied to  epistte @7.1    6 years ago

What? It should be free, conservative Christians should be handing it out at the church doors like some politicians pass out "Atlas Shrugged" to just about anyone they could make take one.

 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
7.1.2  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  nightwalker @7.1.1    6 years ago

Why?  We don’t need an atheist to tell us that our creation science and intelligent design theory are correct and that evolution is pseudoscience.  Those are the facts. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
7.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @7.1.2    6 years ago
We don’t need an atheist to tell us that our creation science and intelligent design theory are correct and that evolution is pseudoscience.

They will tell you the exact opposite, and rightly so!

 Those are the facts. 

That's nice. Prove it!

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
7.1.4  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson51 @7.1.2    6 years ago
Why?  We don’t need an atheist to tell us that our creation science and intelligent design theory are correct and that evolution is pseudoscience.  Those are the facts. 

Please put forth a hypothesis that precedes research into creationism.

( this should be fun)

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  epistte @7.1.4    6 years ago
this should be fun

To me it is sad.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Participates
7.1.6  epistte  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.5    6 years ago

I doubt that he will reply.

Given that there has never been any evidence for creationism, how would you write an ID hypothesis for research?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
7.1.7  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @7.1.6    6 years ago

Of course he's not likely to reply. At least, nothing that isn't simply him repeating himself, as if that validates anything he says. At best, we'll get circular reasoning or mere belief. More likely, he'll just dodge the challenges or outright ignore them.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
7.1.8  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @7.1.4    6 years ago

That's easy: "god did it." There's your "hypothesis." Lol

 
 
 
nightwalker
Sophomore Silent
7.1.9  nightwalker  replied to  XXJefferson51 @7.1.2    6 years ago

ROFL

If those WERE facts, scientists and atheists would be saying that those were facts, and you'd probably be backing the big bang theory. 

 
 

Who is online



JohnRussell
jw
Dismayed Patriot
Snuffy


292 visitors