 |
| "Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False" |
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 chapter 1, Nagel cites with favor the work of three Discovery Institute Fellows in particular:
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.Click here to read the FULL article.......
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSorry, lots of typos in my first comment. Anyway, this is not altogether surprising. Meyer and Behe are potent intellectuals, and anyone giving them a fair hearing can easily detect the sound logic and persuasive foundation for their arguments.
ReplyDeleteI know nothing of Nagel, other than what I just read, but I suspect that he's in for a brutal crucifixion if he holds his ground. Let's hope that the coming pressure doesn't cause him to suddenly retract, although I doubt that will happen, now that he's published his respected opinions. I hope IT 315 can find the time to keep us updated.
It's been a very good day for me: a kind message from Nelis and now I get to know about this. I was just mentioning to my children that I needed something to cheer about. God is right on time, every time.
The following essay seems fitting for this article. It is by me and was printed in two different publications. I don't think you have read such an approach before.
ReplyDeleteNot long ago I submitted an essay ("Love, hatred and the evolution debate," Feb.6) arguing that unless Darwinian evolution addressed and answered the issue of unchanging absolutes that exist in human thought processes, then it is only a cup half full, and in this sense all of us should be cautious of it. The absolutes were love and hatred.
It is my desire to provide a further clarification. I will do the best I can to make it unproblematic. If you would like to read a one-sentence explanation, see John 3:12. Jesus was a gensis at wrapping up things in a few words.
We all accept the notion that love is very real and is witnessed in the material world: A mother hugging her child, a child caring for elderly parents, two people getting married and so on. We all also accept the suggestion that love can't die as an absolute idea.
And then the inevitable occurs and all people who love or are loved die. Then what happens to the love that was in them? One seemingly rational answer is that love continues to live, just not in them. Or perhaps that love returns to its fundamental state and continues to live in others, or in general as an absolute, undying idea. Let's consider the ramification of the first answer only, and just try to agree, concerning the second, that something can't return to a place it already exists.
If love lives within a physical body and is itself not a material thing, then its real essence can be said to not only live in a physical body but in the mind's spirit. Most of us will find no problem agreeing on this point.
Therefore, if love in fact cannot die, and in fact simultaneously possesses a physical body and one's spirit, then even when the body dies, love is still alive within that person's spirit, despite the fact that we cannot now see either of them. So if we agree that love cannot die, and we agree that it lives in a person's spirit as an absolute idea - and we all do - then we are forced to also agree that the spirit of a person cannot die either. How can something die without that which lives in it die as well, if in fact both are capable of dying?
Because love is not capable of dying in a "natural" sense, because it is not physical matter, and the thing that houses the love, a human's spirit, is also not natural or physical, then we can only come to the conclusion that the spirit is not capable of dying, as well. Then where do they both go? Well, religious folks, as the majority idea, say heaven or hell. They firmly believe this means that God must exist, because for anyone to deny this - especially an atheist - is to actually deny the very existense of the idea or "life" of love, as explicitly stated in 1 John:4:16. If someone else is responsible for creating love, then I think we would have discovered it by now.
It is not always an easy subject to understand, but if you think about it carefully and consider it as put forth, I think you will agree. And by agreeing, you must then look at evolution in a new light, and come to the further conclusion that it does not and cannot - and will not ever answer this question, despite whatever scientific advancements you pin your hopes on.
Note: I'm going to stop now, because I fear I'm running out of allotted room. If anyone would care to read the entire essay, then please contact me by clicking on the link to my name, and sending me an e-mail with a mailing address, and I'll be glad to forward it. The essay received high praise from a number of readers, and they expressed what I thought: that they had never heard this agrument before. Thanks to all. God bless.
Finally: Please forgive any typos I've made. I've tried to be careful, but I'm in a bit of a hurry, the call of food, clothing, and shelter beckoning me toward the front door. I'm sure you all can relate to that.