''The Earth is made up of chemical elements – think of the periodic table. That is a list of all basic elemental materials on our planet. Because of gravity, matter (comprising all solids, liquids and gases) does not leave the system. It is a closed box. And, the laws of thermodynamics, long agreed by scientists, tell us that it’s impossible to destroy matter. So the chemical matter we have on Earth will always be here. The important question is, how are those chemicals organised? The Earth is an open system for energy
It is accepted science that the Earth is an open system for energy. Energy radiates into the Earth’s system, mainly from the sun. Energy is then radiated back into space from the Earth, with the flows being regulated by the Earth’s atmosphere and ozone layer. This delicate balanced transfer of energy maintains the surface temperature at a level that is suited to the forms of life that have evolved and currently exist.''
Originally Posted by Tarquin
I read the reviews on Nagel's book you cited. They conveniently fail to confront his actual arguments, which is typical. They hardly address Nagel's criticisms of evolution, choosing instead to go ad hominem and employ caricature. Much like you---the hallmark of dialectic impotence! Nagel is formidable, has a first rate mind and impeccable academic credentials. If you can't provide a genuinely substantive critique of his criticism of Darwinism, don't waste our time.
No, that is your interpretation. Nagel is a philosopher, and his objections are philosophical not scientific, hence interesting as ideas and speculation but not science.
''In thinking about Nagel’s probability argument, we need to be careful about which facts we are considering. The fact that life on earth started some 3.8 billion years ago, and that intelligence and consciousness made their terrestrial appearances more recently—this is a local fact about our planet, and maybe it was very improbable, given how the universe got started. But consider the more global fact that the universe contains life and intelligence and consciousness at some time in its total history. What’s the probability of that, given the universe’s initial state? Science doesn’t really have much of a clue (yet), but this gap in our present knowledge does not show that fundamental presuppositions of the sciences need rethinking. After all, conventional science does tell us that the universe is a very big place with lots of planets that are about as close to their stars as our planet is to the sun. Maybe life and intelligence and consciousness had a high probability of arising (someplace and sometime, not necessarily on earth in the last 3.8 billion years). If this global fact is the remarkable fact that Nagel has in mind, he should not conclude that biology needs to be supplied with new organizing principles. Do not confuse the proposition that Evelyn Marie Adams won the New Jersey lottery twice in four months with the proposition that someone won some state lottery or other twice, at some time or other. The first was very improbable, the second much less so.''
Your distinction between science and philosophy is analytically silly but a standard canard trotted out by Darwinists when some high-level thinker points out the logical flaws in the philosophy of neo-darwinism. In any event, Nagel recognizes that the odds are essentially impossible for evolution. The quote above does not tame those odds. See my prior reference to the math of physicist Gerard Schroeder on the long odds.
I am not the one to make a distinction between science and philosophy. The distinction is there. It was a distinction that was recognized a long time ago. It's not even contraversy. You guys try every silly trick in the book to defend faith.
