Where Darwinism Falls Short

Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False, by Thomas Nagel  

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.

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.

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.

Stingy Liberals- A Moral Justification for Selfishness

The Left constantly exclaims that Republicans are greedy. For example John Kenneth Galbraith once said, "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."  Are these liberals correct? Are Republicans searching for a reason to justify their own personal greediness? Should conservatives look to their moral superiors, ie. liberals, as to how to become more generous, selfless individuals?

This argument by the left is false in so many ways it is difficult to know where to begin.  First off, liberals are extremely stingy in their charitable giving.  They are, in fact, only generous with other people’s money.  They feel that all one has to do in order to be a charitable person is put a checkmark next to all the names marked D on a ballot.  That’s it; if you do this, you are now morally superior to a conservative who donates more of his own money and his own time.  Who is the one that is on “the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness?”

Just for the sake of another argument let’s assume that liberals are correct and the IRS is in fact the world’s largest charity organization.  When we pay our taxes to Uncle Sam, and when we vote for politicians who want to raise our taxes lets consider that action to be the pinnacle of being a charitable person. Liberals perform their one charitable act every year inside a ballot box. Do they do so expecting to pay more in taxes themselves? No. Obama is constantly saying he will cut taxes for the middle class, and he only wants to raise taxes on the top 2-3% of income earners.  So unless you’re in that top 2-3% you are not even planning on contributing more of your own money. Liberals are very generous with other people’s money.  How noble of them.

The following story illustrates the hypocrisy of the left. In a campaign speech in March, Obama was lecturing on the morality of higher taxes on the rich and other mumbo jumbo.  In this speech Obama invokes a biblical phrase about ‘being our brother’s keeper.’  We won’t worry about the biblical context of the phrase as Obama did not specifically mention the Bible, but lets look at being our brother’s keeper.The following couple paragraphs are from a Fox News opinion piece by Dinesh D’Souza.

“A few days ago I received a call from a man I recently met named George.  He was a bit flustered, and soon informed me that his young son was sick with a chest condition.  He pleaded with me to send him $1,000 to cover the medical bills.  Since George was at the hospital I asked him to let me speak to a nurse, and she confirmed that George’s son was indeed ill.  So I agreed to send George the money through Western Union.  He was profusely grateful.  But before I hung up I asked George, “Why are you coming to me?”  He said, “I have no one else to ask.”  Then he said something that astounded me, “Dinesh, you are like a brother to me.”

“Actually, George has a real life brother who just happens to be the President of the United States. (George Obama is the youngest of eight children sired by Barack Obama Sr.)  George’s brother is a multimillionaire and the most powerful man in the world.  Moreover, George’s brother has framed his re-election campaign around the “fair share” theme that we owe obligations to those who are less fortunate.  

“One of Obama’s favorite phrases comes right out of the Bible: “We are our brother’s keeper.”  Yet he has not contributed a penny to help his own brother. And evidently George does not believe, even in times of emergency, that he can turn to his brother in the White House for help.

“So much for “spreading the wealth around”.”

And don’t even get me started on Joe Biden.

Capitalism: Part I

Capitalism is often vilified as being unfair, anti-democratic or even immoral, but what really is capitalism?  Capitalism is an economic system where people are able to freely trade for goods and services. A second aspect of capitalism is the private ownership of goods, land, and property in general.  Capitalism is not a perfect system, nor one without government involvement, but it is the most prosperous, most free economic system that we have.

Both the stated aspects of capitalism are displayed in a very common event, a garage sale.  A garage sale is the bare bones of capitalism.  You are trading ownership of an item for an amount of cash that is agreed upon by both people.  In this arrangement it shows the basis of what makes capitalism work, and why it works so well.  If I go to a garage sale and see a bucket on sale for one dollar and buy it because I just happen to need a bucket for painting my house, then I’ve just gotten a great deal. Also, the person who is selling the bucket has had the bucket lying around taking up room in the garage for years and now is glad that some guy gave them a whole dollar for something they would have gladly taken 75 cents (or less) for.  Both people come out of the situation thinking they got a great deal and both people feel they benefitted from the transaction.  This is capitalism.

Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman once said, "The most important single central fact about a free market [Capitalism] is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit."  This is the beauty of capitalism.  The garage sale story above is how our entire economy operates.  When we go to Wal-Mart we will only buy things that have more value to us than the money that we will give to Wal-Mart.  This doesn’t mean that we’ll be joyous about the price of everything, but it does mean that we won’t buy anything unless we think the item is worth more than the money they are asking; in other words, we’ll only purchase the item if it is ‘worth it.’  Equally important, Wal-Mart will only sell things to us for a price that is worth more than what it is worth to them.  This does not mean that Wal-Mart is just trying to rip us off by charging as much they can. Wal-Mart has realized that if they sell things for as little as possible, and hence sell a much larger quantity, then they can make more money than by trying to rip everyone off.  So we see that in a market economy where both buyers and sellers are free to purchase and sell as they please both parties will only partake in trade if they both feel they are going to benefit by the exchange.

These exchanges don’t just happen at Wal-Mart, they occur when you negotiate a salary, or an hourly wage.  They occur when you’re deciding whether to buy a cell phone, to get your car washed, or to go see a movie. Every time we spend money we think, “Is this worth it? Or would I rather keep the money and wash the car myself?”  By asking ourselves these questions we do a pretty good job of putting our money where we most value it, and thus maximize the return for our money.

When everyone is controlling their own money, each person can make the decisions that they feel are best.  Will they always spend that money wisely? Sadly, no. (After all, this exists).  But they will likely do a pretty good job, and don’t they have the right to spend their money their money however they choose anyways? For right or wrong?  That is what freedom is all about, the opportunity to do with your life whatever you will.  Capitalism is the only existing economic system that allows freedom of its participants.  Capitalism is an economic system that promotes freedom, frugality, and prosperity, and best of all: it works.

We Love Politicians

People love to hate politicians.  Ever since there has been politicians, the word has been used as a synonym for liar, criminal, or basically any word that denotes a "bad person." The word slimy seems to be a favorite when people are describing politicians.  I think a lot of these characterizations are actually pretty fair to say of most politicians; however when it comes to the sleaziest, slimiest politicians people tend to really admire them. They are just so good at it we can't help but like them.

  Bill Clinton is the prime example of the slimy politician that people can't help but love.  I don't know if the man has ever said a sincere word in his life, yet every word he says sounds like it comes from the bottom of his heart; and people buy it.  Most people wouldn't have given Bill Clinton the "politician" label until after the Monica Lewinsky scandal where he was caught in a lie so blatant, and he lied about it so banally, that people came to realize who this man was, a "politician."  But still, watching the man speak you can discern his skill; mainly by how indiscernible it is and how sincere he appears. The man is good at what he does.

 The irony is that the people labeled ‘politicians (implying the slimy variety) are the ones that are not very good at being politicians, but they still try.  This is where Mitt Romney fits in.  The man is a terrible politician, he doesn't know how to make people feel that he is normal, just one of the guys, that he "feels their pain."  Yet because he still tries to do these things he is constantly labeled as a spineless, insincere "politician."

   Mitt Romney has flip-flopped on a few issues, but because he doesn't know how to sell his flip-flops he gets the politician label.  As a counter example, Barack Obama was for gay marriage when he ran for state senator in 1996, then against it when he ran for the US Senate in 2006 and now he is for it again in 2012 and he has been hailed for his "evolution" on the issue.  Obama is a much better politician than Mitt Romney.

  It has been, and will continue to be, a theme in this election that Mitt Romney is the spineless politician while Barack Obama is the righteous crusader who is above and beyond politics. The truth of the matter is that Barack Obama is the politician, he just hides it much better than Mitt Romney. 

Here’s Clinton with in full politician mode
My personal favorite video of Slick Willy entering politician mode.

The Problem with Ron Paul

    Liberals live in another world. They make it seem as if we just listened to them we could eliminate poverty, hate, rising sea levels, and basically any problem that exists. They feel a utopia is within our reach if we would just enact their simple reforms. Poverty, greed, and sickness are simply things that can be legislated out of existence with the right regulations or social programs. Their solutions for these problems may vary by name, but they are always the same: more government. This may be a caricature, but it is not necessarily an unfair one.

   This problem of idealizing the world, trying to force a perfect world upon an imperfect one, does happen on the right side of the political spectrum as well; however, it tends to be concentrated in one area, or more specifically around one person: Ron Paul. Ron Paul believes that if we just followed his philosophy all of the world's problems would disappear. As those on the left feel more government could solve all problems, Ron Paul and his supporters feel all we need is less government (practically none) and all of our problems would just disappear.

  Ron Paul is correct that the Federal government is too large and that it interferes in people’s lives in ways it has no business dealing with but he is misled by his overreaching trust in limited government. For example, Ron Paul does not believe that we should have any drugs that are illegal. Now I will not argue that there are no drawbacks of our current drug policies, but should we really be considering legalizing heroin, crack, or methamphetamine? I've heard Ron Paul, Milton Friedman, and other economists and politicians argue for legalization of these drugs. The basis of their argument is that they feel few people would choose to use these drugs even if they were legal. Now, although I don't think that everyone and their dog would become heroin addicts if it were legal, I do believe that heroin use (I'm just using heroin as an example here) would go up considerably, especially among certain demographics. Right now crack and heroin are extremely expensive and, as far as I can tell, pretty difficult to come by. If it became cheap, legal, and readily available, then clearly drug use would go up; people would become addicted, and I haven't heard many stories of productive heroin addicts.

   My point here isn't that I love everything about our drug laws or the FDA or DEA but mainly that we can't just have a blanket assumption that less government is always better than more government. Ron Paul and his supporters have that blanket assumption.

   Here are a few examples of Ron Paul's solutions for America's problems:

 Foreign Policy? American intervention is the source of all problems. If we do nothing, problem solved!

 Gay Marriage? No real issue here either, the government shouldn't be involved in marriage. Problem Solved!

 Economic Recessions? No real issue here either, we just need to get the government out of our monetary system and all of our problems will disappear.

 Taxes? Who needs 'em?!?!

   No congress would pass Ron Paul’s agenda, even if elected President. What would he do? Would he work to shrink government in any and all ways available? He would not. The man never votes for anything that he doesn’t agree with 100%. If a bill came to his desk that shrank the Department of Education down to nothing but a desk in a closet he would feel it unconstitutional because it didn’t abolish the Department. That’s what we call crazy. Ron Paul didn’t support, and still does not support, NAFTA because this free-trade agreement wasn’t free enough. This is a bill that freed trade between Canada, Mexico, and the US but Ron Paul would not vote for it in part because it was only a ‘managed-trade’ agreement. The bill was good enough for Milton Friedman but not for Ron Paul.

  This is why I could never support Ron Paul, especially for the GOP nomination. He views the world differently than it actually is. He doesn’t understand that perfection is not within our reach in this life. Ron Paul and Barack Obama attract a lot of the same people because they both offer the same fantasy; just different ways of achieving it. Ron Paul offers a utopia of limited government and Barack Obama offers a utopia with lots of government. There are no utopias.

By Jared Christopherson

Edited by Zack Christopherson