Philosopher Nagel advocates Intelligent Design
Posted: 25 August 2012 08:05 AM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  973
Joined  2005-01-14

I picked up on this over at the Morning Heresy thread… Does anybody have a clue what Nagel is talking about?  I’m all in favor of keeping an open mind… we have to constantly question our assumptions to make sure we’re not just coasting along.  But what “arguments” do ID promoters actually HAVE that are useful to understanding how life evolved?

http://www.christianpost.com/news/atheist-professor-intelligent-design-arguments-should-be-taken-seriously-80427/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 August 2012 09:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  207
Joined  2011-09-23

As far as i get it he doesnt support the cause, but thinks the critique on the theory of evolution should be taken serious.

I think skepticism and perpetual testing of scientific claims etc. is necessary, but it doesnt change the fact that the ID-Advocats dont even an idea on how to prove that stuff.

And if we ever get something that explains the existence of the species etc. better than the theory of evolution iam sure it wouldnt be anything that includes a guy and a bunch of animals on a large boat or some people who got the death sentence + damnation for eating a fruit.

[ Edited: 25 August 2012 09:49 AM by Alexander80 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 August 2012 09:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1401
Joined  2010-04-22
advocatus - 25 August 2012 08:05 AM

I’m all in favor of keeping an open mind… we have to constantly question our assumptions to make sure we’re not just coasting along. 

I have become not so much in favor of this term ‘open mind.’ I do not want my mind open to whatever pours in; I want a skeptical mind, skeptical of both my assumptions and others’.

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 August 2012 10:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15396
Joined  2006-02-14

Apparently Nagel has been doing this for years. He’s got no relevant background in the science, and isn’t even a philosopher of science. He’s just a guy with some weird ideas about consciousness.

He’s generally an interesting philosopher, but he’s completely out of his depth here.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2012 06:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4350
Joined  2010-08-15

Contrarian-skepticism is such easy slippery slithery animal.

“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.”

¿ translates to:
Thanks for keeping us intellectually honest by using intellectually dishonest arguments [:scratching head smilie:]

Hmmmm is this just an example of trying to “rational think” one’s way around the ‘deep’ dilemma creationists, oops intelligent designers, have stirred up for science ...

“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.”

keep the controversy alive… let’s never move forward,

keep reinventing… er, guessing about… the atom every day,
or is it just the scientific method he’s trying to reinvent?

sick

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 August 2012 10:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  786
Joined  2012-04-25

I get what Nagel is trying to say, and his attitude. Unfortunately I think he’s way too naive.  He believes he’s having an honest intellectual discussion with other truth-seekers about theories, the ways of sciences, etc. Obviously he’s not. He’s playing right into the hands of the fundies who hate truth and whose only goal is to beat back science and promote religion in its place. Jesus and god herself would probably be ashamed.

Profile