Thomas Nagel is a well-respected doctor of philosophy at New York University. In this book he puts forth many interesting and compelling arguments against the idea that Darwinian evolution is the complete explanation of life on earth.
At times in the book Nagel demolishes the idea that Darwinism is true, later he will seem to undoubtedly support the basic concepts of evolution and even support natural selection. After reading the book completely he seems to rationalize these two views by disregarding certain principles and conclusions of evolution but accepting the fossil record and the view that we have ‘evolved’ from previous life, all the way back to bacteria. He even believes in a limited natural selection for the process by which humans have come to be. He does reject the idea that simply by understanding current physics and chemistry we could evolve to our current diversity and intelligence of life, which he feels is a major component of Darwinism. He feels that natural selection is an incomplete and insufficient way to explain the consciousness, cognition, and values that humans have.
At times in the book Nagel demolishes the idea that Darwinism is true, later he will seem to undoubtedly support the basic concepts of evolution and even support natural selection. After reading the book completely he seems to rationalize these two views by disregarding certain principles and conclusions of evolution but accepting the fossil record and the view that we have ‘evolved’ from previous life, all the way back to bacteria. He even believes in a limited natural selection for the process by which humans have come to be. He does reject the idea that simply by understanding current physics and chemistry we could evolve to our current diversity and intelligence of life, which he feels is a major component of Darwinism. He feels that natural selection is an incomplete and insufficient way to explain the consciousness, cognition, and values that humans have.
Dr. Nagel makes clear many times he is a strict atheist so this book is not based on theological arguments. If Dr. Nagel were a theist then his personal views would likely line up very closely with intelligent design and he appreciates the viewpoint and feels it adds to the conversation surrounding life on earth.
Dr. Nagel feels that a major shortcoming of Darwinism is that it fails to explain consciousness; also that evolution and natural selection would fail to predict that conscious, cognizant beings would come about. He states that a theory that could have predicted the conscious, cognizant life on earth would be more appealing. Dr. Nagel argues that if we were to observe the primitive earth we could not have predicted that life would evolve because the physical and chemical probabilities of complex molecules necessary for life evolving is just too low; he views this as a major problem of Darwinism. For example in the introduction he states, “The more details we learn about the chemical basis of life and the intricacy of the genetic code, the more unbelievable the standard historical model becomes…. But it seems to me… the current orthodoxy about the cosmic order is the product of governing assumptions that are unsupported, and that it flies in the face of common sense.”
He spends a large part of the book arguing against psychophysical reductionism (meaning that psychology and biology can be understood completely by physics and chemistry if you were to just have all the information about the chemistry/physics of the system). He feels that Darwinism is based on psychophysical reductionism and that is one reason why it does not explain the given data as well as could another theory which would fundamentally incorporate a bias towards conscious life.
Dr. Nagel does not give a full explanation for a competing hypothesis, but does express sympathy towards intelligent design, except for the inherent Creator. He feels a theory should show an internal bias towards organization and intelligent conscious life, which would explain that despite the physical and chemical probabilities life was very likely to develop on Earth.
Although this book is only 128 pages, it is not exactly a quick read. Dr. Nagel is a doctor of philosophy and he writes like one. This book is readable to a lay person, but will only be understandable if you take the time to learn such terms as realism, anti-realism, reductionism, anti-reductionism, monism, teleology, and so forth. I took two philosophy classes in undergrad that helped me understand many of the basic terms but still felt myself quite unprepared for the massive use of philosophical terms and arguments. He does use analogies that simplify the argument and overall the book is very well written and quite comprehendible, especially if you are willing to understand the basic philosophical terms he uses.
Dr. Nagel does not give a full explanation for a competing hypothesis, but does express sympathy towards intelligent design, except for the inherent Creator. He feels a theory should show an internal bias towards organization and intelligent conscious life, which would explain that despite the physical and chemical probabilities life was very likely to develop on Earth.
Although this book is only 128 pages, it is not exactly a quick read. Dr. Nagel is a doctor of philosophy and he writes like one. This book is readable to a lay person, but will only be understandable if you take the time to learn such terms as realism, anti-realism, reductionism, anti-reductionism, monism, teleology, and so forth. I took two philosophy classes in undergrad that helped me understand many of the basic terms but still felt myself quite unprepared for the massive use of philosophical terms and arguments. He does use analogies that simplify the argument and overall the book is very well written and quite comprehendible, especially if you are willing to understand the basic philosophical terms he uses.
I read three reviews before I read the book; I prefer the reviews by The New Republic and National Review and found the one by The Nation to seem defensive and small minded, especially after reading the book.
Sounds like a very interesting book. Something that both sides of the evolution "debate" would benefit from reading. Many of the strict evolutionist (oft times ardent atheists) are reductionist to the core. On the other side, we have people (MANY people in fact) saying that the Earth is 5,000 years old. Both border on being absurd (the latter more so than the former). At the end of the day, neither side can prove itself completely right. However, we do know which side has exponentially more evidence to piece together the history of our species and evolution in general. But science has its limitations and that is where theology and philosophy step in. In my view theology and philosophy don't serve to answer what science cannot. They allow us to ponder these questions, form our own subjective beliefs and hopefully guide us in living meaningful and examined lives.
ReplyDelete