ID vs. Evolution and philosopher Nagel vs. anti-Science Leiter

From David Gordon (hat tip: LewRockwell.com)-- an excerpt from a review of Secular Philosophy and the Religious Temperament: Essays 2002–2008, by Thomas Nagel, in The Mises Review.

Thomas Nagel addresses another issue that libertarians will find of interest. Much controversy has arisen in recent years over teaching alternatives to Darwinian evolution in public schools....From a libertarian standpoint, intractable controversies of this kind are the near-inevitable results of public education....With private education, by contrast, these problems do not arise, since parents can select schools in accord with their preferences.

Nagel's remarks on Intelligent Design are of great philosophical significance. He is an atheist and does not accept the view that a designing mind directed the evolutionary process. But he opposes what he deems a contemporary prejudice in favor of reductionist naturalism. He doubts that Darwinism can adequately explain the existence of objective value and looks instead to an immanent teleology in the world.

Although he does not accept Intelligent Design, Nagel refuses to dismiss the movement as merely religious. Critics claim that design cannot be a legitimate scientific hypothesis; but at the same time, they maintain that the theory can be shown to be false. Nagel pertinently asks, how can both of these assertions be true together?

Nagel's opinions on this issue have led to a remarkable episode. Brian Leiter runs a blog, Leiter Reports [widely-read for its information on university philosophy departments]...When Nagel's article on Intelligent Design appeared, Leiter could not contain his rage (see here and here). We were presented with the unedifying spectacle of Leiter's speaking in abusive and condescending terms about one of the foremost philosophers of the past half-century....

Matters worsened when Nagel recommended in The Times Literary Supplement Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell as one of his "Best Books of the Year"...Nagel did not endorse Meyer's conclusion but praised the book for its account of the "fiendishly difficult" problem of life's origin. This recommendation aroused Leiter to new heights of contumely. It seems quite likely that Leiter never bothered to look at Meyer's book....

I have gone on at some length about this, because the attempt by Leiter and others to block inquiry that challenges naturalism seems to me altogether deplorable....even if these avid naturalists are correct in their metaphysics, debate needs to be encouraged rather than suppressed...

You'd think or at least hope that Leiter would be party to his own folly. But such blindness is what you get, many times, from fundamentalists. Perhaps some of his more open and tolerant fellow travelers will be awakened to see such garbage from a compatriot.