Darwin's Doubt, Intelligent Design And Evolution.

[Khandro]

Has anyone watched this film, an interview with Stephen Meyer?

I found it rather compelling, and I thought he answered well the critics who have wished to steer him into the religious standpoint which is not what it's about at all.

[Khandro]

'Noted Atheist Philosopher Thomas Nagel: "Defenders of Intelligent Design Deserve Our Gratitude"
In September, Oxford University Press officially releases the hardcover version of a new book by renowned philosopher Thomas Nagel at New York University. It's a bombshell.
Already available on Kindle, Nagel's book carries the provocative title Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. You read that right: The book's subtitle declares that "the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False." Nagel is an atheist who is not convinced by the positive case for intelligent design. But he clearly finds the evidence for modern Darwinian theory wanting. Moreover, he is keenly appreciative of the "iconoclasts" of the intelligent design movement for raising a significant challenge to the current scientific orthodoxy.
In thinking about these questions I have been stimulated by criticisms of the prevailing scientific world picture... 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.
Refreshingly, Nagel is not taken in by one-sided efforts to evade the arguments of intelligent design proponents by stigmatizing their presumed "religious beliefs." As Nagel points out, "the empirical arguments" offered by ID proponents "are of great interest in themselves." It's the evidence that matters, and it's the evidence that demands a response.
Nagel goes on to say something that likely will really rile some defenders of Darwinian orthodoxy:
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. That world view is ripe for displacement....'

[jomifl]

Has he done any experiments to prove his argument or is it based upon supposition and a limited understanding of evolution. He is not an evolutionary biologist, he is not a biologist, he is not even a scientist, he is a lawyer and seemingly a philospher too. So, no surprise there.

[jomifl]

/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. That world view is ripe for displacement....' /

Science is not about rubbishing religion, it isn't a contest with belief, it deals with testable theories associated with the material and electromagnetic world.
Nagel ignores facts just like most philosophers, as facts get in the way of a good idea.

[jomifl]

Khandro, Have a look at this ...science evolves too
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory

[Khandro]

j. //Has he done any experiments to prove his argument//
Have you? what experiments have you done to demonstrate that life can be formed from inorganic matter? Also one doesn't become Professor of Philosophy and Law at New York University, be educated at Harvard University, Cornell University, University of Oxford, Corpus Christi College, and reach the age of 75 without gaining a smattering of knowledge on most things, scientific and otherwise.
What constitutes a "scientist" anyway? Would a 2.2 university degree followed by a few years in a some gash job give sufficient validation for the title? It's not a matter of being simply a scientist but a good one, and it seems to me a good one is an open-minded one.

[Khandro]

please replace 'Have you' with 'do you know of'

[naomi24]

From jom: //Nagel ignores facts just like most philosophers, as facts get in the way of a good idea. //

//Nagel's views on ID have been criticized by some from the scientific community. Stephen Fletcher, a chemist at Loughborough University, wrote in The Times Literary Supplement in 2009 that Nagel "should not promote the [Meyer] book to the rest of us using statements that are factually incorrect."//

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Nagel

[jomifl]

Khandro, A professor of law and philosophy is no more a scientist than a professor of greek history or media studies.
Perhaps it would be better if we dealt with one question at a time and gnawed it down to the bone rather than chasing the illusory rabbits that you keep producing from your philisophical hat. :o)

[Khandro]

Naomi; Don't you feel you are being a little disingenuous, not to say cynical, to hunt through the profile of a man with such a distinguished career looking for something negative to say, then it comes from a teacher from Loughborough, and which statements does he, and you, think are factually incorrect?
jom. Your link says, even within itself, that the theory is discredited.

[jomifl]

/Your link says, even within itself, that the theory is discredited./
No it doesn't, it discredits the theory of recapitulation, that is all. Perhaps you would understand what science is if you read something written by scientists rather than the stuff you keep hawking which so far seems to have been written by cranks and axe grinders, none of whom seem to understand what they discuss.

[jomifl]

So when a scientist (even from lowly Loughborough) criticizes a great(?) philospher's understanding of a matter of science he can't be right? If philosophers actually tested their ideas against reality they might surprise themselves by discovering that philosophy doesn't have the last word, reality does.

[naomi24]

Khandro, //Don't you feel you are being a little disingenuous, not to say cynical, to hunt through the profile of a man with such a distinguished career looking for something negative to say//

I’m not being disingenuous and I didn’t hunt looking for something negative to say – I googled him to find out more. You may find this interesting.

http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article706905.ece

[jomifl]

Thanks for the link Naomi, it seems that a little ignorance is a dangerous thing.

[Khandro]

n. Thank you for that link. The exchange shows quite clearly why Fletcher is, and will probably remain (if he's lucky) a teacher in the Department of Chemistry at Loughborough Polytechnic, (or has it been re-named?)
Have you checked him out too?
"Hello. My name is Stephen Fletcher and I am a researcher and teacher here in the Department of Chemistry at Loughborough. My personal goal is to understand how electrons interact with matter. This field of activity is called electrochemistry." Jeeez! and goodnight.

[naomi24]

Khandro, yes, I have checked him out too, and I have no idea if the institution has been renamed. However, the intro you gave was from him to new students, but if you think the exchange shows “quite clearly why Fletcher is, and will probably remain (if he's lucky) a teacher in the Department of Chemistry...”, the onus is upon you to explain why you’ve reached that conclusion.

[naomi24]

Khandro, just to help you out in your quest to discredit Professor Fletcher:

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/chemistry/staff/professor-stephen-fletcher-.html

http://publications.lboro.ac.uk/publications/all/collated/cmsf.html

Perhaps you can tell us why the philosophers you support are eminently more qualified to pronounce on the subject than he is?

[jomifl]

Khandro, you do yourself no favours in attempting to belittle Professor Fletcher, as a substitute for reasoned argument. He is eminently more qualified to comment on the chemical aspects of evolution and the origins of life than your ID advocates.

[Khandro]

Jomifl; Belittling is not my usual way, but it had to be done to counter your specious referral to Meyer,Behe, Berlinski etc as 'cranks and axe-grinders(?)'
I watched last night on BBC4 a Horizon programme on the 10 billion pound CERN project, which began aptly with an image of Shiva Nataraja, the Lord of Dance; a depiction of the god Shiva as the cosmic dancer who performs his divine dance to destroy a weary universe and make preparations for the god Brahma to start the process of creation.
In the early stages of the experiment everyone seemed prepared for the discovery of the Higgs and thereby how the universe was created, but it didn't work out that way. In the end the head of the operation, was sitting rather despondently musing about fine-tuning and the possibility of multiverses.
As the purpose of Lord Shiva Nataraja's dance is to release humans from illusion, do you think he may have achieved his goal?

[vetuste_ennemi]

Make it simple for me, Khandro: what illusions do you think humankind would be the better for being disabused of?

[Khandro]

A fair society? :0)