Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands. Cults everywhere: Islam, the State, the cult of Gay and Queer, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, 'Science', Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion....a nice variety for the human-hater, amoral, anti-rationalist to choose from. It is so much fun mocking them isn't it ?
Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death
The interest I had in this book was to read what a determined Atheist-Evolutionist [are there any other kinds?]; had to say about one of the Trinity of Darwinism – natural selection. Like many other Atheist-Evolutionists Nagel knows that NS is an utter nonsense and scientific impossibility. Select from what ? How? Why ? As Nagel states:
“..implausible that life as we know it is the result of a sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural selection.”
Darwinists have no answer to these basic questions – but plenty of dogma. Though Nagel rejects NS he still believes that a dialectical-naturalist explanation of life is possible. To achieve this he proposes that the mind [as separate from the brain], and not the natural universe be the method of synthesis and explanation. I have no idea if this metaphysical concept is valid or of much use – outside of philosophy. What is more important is that another Darwinist has apostasied. Unlike in Islam however, it is unlikely he will be killed. He still maintains his cult membership. One assumes that grant money and friends are harder to come by if he formally left his theology.
Yet Nagel openly admits that NS is absurd and criticizes high priest and Evolution apostle Saint Dawkins:
“...no longer legitimate simply to imagine a sequence of gradually evolving phenotypes, as if their appearance through mutations in the DNA were unproblematic—as Richard Dawkins does for the evolution of the eye.”
Ah the eye. Cult founder Darwin knew that the human eye disproved evolution. Evolutionists have no scientific answers to the irreducibly complex eye and all of the complexity around using sight to act, react, think, and understand our environment. The eye without a brain and a nervous system is rather useless. Abiogenesis ?
“With regard to the origin of life, the problem is much harder, since the option of natural selection as an explanation is not available.”
Something from dead matter is impossible. Yet this is what Darwin's cult proposes. How about DNA?
“And the coming into existence of the genetic code—an arbitrary mapping of nucleotide sequences into amino acids, together with mechanisms that can read the code and carry out its instructions—seems particularly resistant to being revealed as probable given physical law alone.”
So evolution does not explain complex organs, the origins of life nor cellular formation and code. Other than that it is scientific.
“...intellectual humility requires that we resist the temptation to assume that tools of the kind we now have are in principle sufficient to understand the universe as a whole.”
Nagel is honest enough to be humble. The rest of his cult is the opposite – arrogant, irrational, ruthless and unprincipled. Yet the fact remains that:
“...more details we learn about the chemical basis of life and the intricacy of the genetic code, the more unbelievable the standard historical account becomes.”
What about the god of mutations – the second god in Darwin's Holy Trinity ?
“...evolution, the process of natural selection cannot account for the actual history without an adequate supply of viable mutations, and I believe it remains an open question whether this could have been provided in geological time merely as a result of chemical accident, without the operation of some other factors determining and restricting the forms of genetic variation.”
There has been plenty of mathematical calculations done proving that since 99% of mutations are either negative/regressive, or neutral, there is simply not enough billions of years to take a protozoa to Oprah Winfrey or some god of modern culture. Expect the cult of Darwin to extend the age of the earth and the universe by a factor of 10x in the coming generation.
What of the mind and morals ?
“Consciousness is the most conspicuous obstacle to a comprehensive naturalism that relies only on the resources of physical science. The existence of consciousness seems to imply that the physical description of the universe, in spite of its richness and explanatory power, is only part of the truth, and that the natural order is far less austere than it would be if physics and chemistry accounted for everything.”
This is obvious. The immaterial world is as valid as the material. DNA or genetic code is obviously immaterial. It cannot arise from a material process of chance no matter how much the Darwinists scream and yell that it did. The mind, consciousness, morality, even speech point to the immaterial. Dialectical naturalism, as splendid in its tautology and illogic as any other dialectical materialist theory, is not only unscientific, but at its core immoral, for it rejects the facts of the immaterial and the supreme uniqueness of the human.