Of course, this is nothing particularly new. Immaterialists have been
fighting Darwin and evolutionary ideas for nearly two centuries. Nagel has been
at it for a half century. Sales among the creationist crowd are sure to boom
(it is #1,617 on Amazon). Nagel is, nonetheless, an atheist, which only proves
that the philosophical struggle is not merely between atheism and theism, but
between determinism and indeterminism. Taking advantage of the mainstream’s
belief in finity, Nagel once again drags out the old complaints against
reductionism. As I have mentioned many times, classical mechanism assumed there
were a finite number of causes for every effect. When a particular set of
finite causes inevitably failed to predict perfectly, indeterminists could invoke
“causes” that did not involve matter in motion. Nagel has gotten famous for
doing exactly that.
Like mainstream physics, neo-Darwinism is vulnerable to Nagel’s anti-reductionistic
critique. Not having a clear “cause” for evolution, it has allowed Nagel to
propose “teleology” as the cause. From Wikipedia: “A teleology is any philosophical account
that holds that final causes exist in nature, meaning that design and purpose
analogous to that found in human actions are inherent also
in the rest of nature.” We don’t use teleology in the physical sciences. As my
major professor admonished, it would be silly to say “the rock wanted to fall
off the cliff” or that “water wanted to run downhill.” Nagel gets away with
teleology, not because neo-Darwinism is materialistic, but because it is not
materialistic enough. It runs out of matter in motion right where it needs an
infinite amount of it.
I try to refrain from
quoting myself, but I am particularly proud of this passage from "The
Scientific Worldview" (p. 170-171):
“Requiem for Neo-Darwinism
Like all expedients,
neo-Darwinism, the mechanism of evolution conceived as the combination of
occasional natural selection and the gene as the organism personified, will
meet a timely, evolutionary death. In a way, it will be sad to see this theory go.
It was, after all, a deterministic improvement upon its predecessors. It guided
biology, though errantly, through more than a century of progress. Its
displacement will not be easy, for at bottom, the struggle between Univironmental
Determinism and neo-Darwinism must become a significant historical phase in the
eternal clash between the two great philosophies, determinism and
indeterminism.
Today the scientific world
cries out for a universal theory of evolution, but it cannot have one without
overtly embracing determinism. In so doing it must discard the microcosmic bias
of systems philosophy and adopt the univironmental view instead. The evolution
of any microcosm is never a “self organizing” process, but the result of the
reciprocal interaction of microcosm and macrocosm. The special relationship
between evolution and biology must be destroyed. The midwives of the idea of
evolution must yield their charge to a broader perspective. Evolution is not
merely the property of every living thing; it is the property of every single
thing.”
The fact that neo-Darwinism
is subject to the flimsy arguments of an indeterministic atheist shows how much
it is married to regressive physics. Neo-Darwinists really
are not clear on what their mechanism is. They invariably believe in the “creation”
of the universe, while denying creation in biology. The “cause” of evolution has
been staring them in the face ever since Newton discovered the First Law of
Motion. Evolution cannot involve any “purpose” as we know it, but simple motion
of bodies already in motion. Those bodies cannot speed up or change direction
of their own accord. The universal mechanism of evolution, univironmental
determinism, predicts that whatever happens to an xyz portion of the universe
is determined by the infinite matter in motion within and without. The “purpose”
sometimes attributed to evolution is merely the result of Newton’s object
colliding with another object in an infinite universe. Whether we call it "Least Motion" or "Least Effort" makes no difference. No microcosms will ever be able to speed up or change direction independent of the macrocosm.
Posts
2 comments:
Thomas Nagel, even though he's an atheist, is using the old "God of the Gaps" argument: if we don't know the cause for something, "God Did It" is a sufficient explanation. Nagel offers five arguments against "Neo-Darwinism", which amount to:
1. Ignorance
2. Ignorance
3. Ignorance
4. Ignorance
5. Therefore, teleology must be the answer.
Of course, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Simply because evolution hasn't answered all the questions that might be posed doesn't mean that there are no answers.
However, I'm not convinced that the proper response is changing the paradigm. Neo-Darwinism is true, as far as we know: genes change and nature selects.
As you point out, teleology (the belief that the evolution of the universe is "aimed" at some worthy objective) is totally irrational. Natural selection rewards success and knowledge is more successful than ignorance. So, it's no surprise that Homo Sapiens evolved, nor that their intelligent actions facilitated their continued survival. Standing that whole process on it's head is an evasion, not a revelation.
It may be true that we will never know enough to "predict perfectly" the future evolution of sapience, but that's just admitting that humans will never be omniscient or prescient; imaginary qualities that can't be achieved, even by Gods.
Thanks Bill. As you recognized, Nagel's is the old "god of the gaps" argument, which stems from the fact that the universe is infinite. With UD, we solve that problem with the Third Assumption of Science, uncertainty (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything). We don’t have to make up stuff to fill in the gaps—we just keep on investigating them.
Folks still interested in this controversy from the neo-Darwinism vs. creationism standpoint may want to check out this NYT article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/07/books/thomas-nagel-is-praised-by-creationists.html?emc=tnt&tntemail0=y&_r=0
Note that Nagel’s book “Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False” was chosen by the Guardian as the “most despised science book of 2012.” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2013/jan/04/most-despised-science-book-2012)
Post a Comment