Atheist Professor: Intelligent Design Arguments Should 'Be Taken Seriously'
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."
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
Who is online
99 visitors
“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,"
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.
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.
Anyway it happened by any means.
"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?
Perhaps we are standing in and are GOD both the creator and the creation.
Perhaps not?
Perhaps
Who knows ?
Not I.
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.
I thought you said that was censorship.
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.
I’m no longer talking to you here.
Can I get this same deal, or did that offer expire at midnight EST?
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.
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:
Next, Coyne quotes some of the criticism. Here's an example:
More at Coyne's blog post .
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.
Yes. This philosopher is opining on questions outside of his area of expertise. He should know better.
Almost everyone here does that on most any given topic here.
We're not being cited as experts.
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.
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
[deleted]
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.
You have a very strange idea regarding what constitutes censorship. Pointing out "science" that isn't really science at all is not censorship.
[Deleted] Then it crosses the threshold into pure intended bigotry
[Repeated engagement in meta will result in the assignment of points toward suspension.]
Most that C4P cites as experts are bought by the far right Heartland Institute.
Interesting your fixation with that particular all American think tank.
No, it really isn't. it's pointing out something ("creation science" or ID) that is at best dishonest or fraudulent.
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.
What’s a C4P?
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 my statement too.
This entire situation is an argument from authority fallacy.
This book is 5 years old and it has been dissected in higher education,
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.
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.
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.
They will tell you the exact opposite, and rightly so!
That's nice. Prove it!
Please put forth a hypothesis that precedes research into creationism.
( this should be fun)
To me it is sad.
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?
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.
That's easy: "god did it." There's your "hypothesis." Lol
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.