• AgoraVox sur Twitter
  • RSS
  • Agoravox TV
  • Agoravox Mobile

Signaler un abus

Bernard Dugué 22 octobre 2013 14:19
Bernard Dugué

si je conçois cette notion d’effort vital, c’est pour la distinguer de l’élan vital bergsonien qui est censé expliquer l’évolution. Ce n’est pas du détail. Si vous relisiez mon billet ?

Sinon, admettons qu’il s’agisse de tuer le père Darwin. Ce n’est pas pour revenir en arrière mais annoncer un nouveau Darwin

Awaiting a New Darwin H. Allen Orr Mind and Cosmos : Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False

Before creationists grow too excited, it’s important to see what Nagel is not claiming. He is not claiming that life is six thousand years old, that it did not evolve, or that natural selection played no part in this evolution. He believes that life has a long evolutionary history and that natural selection had a part in it. And while he does believe that intelligent design creationists have asked some incisive questions, Nagel rejects their answers. Indeed he is an atheist. Instead Nagel’s view is that neo-Darwinism, and in fact the whole materialist view elaborated by science since the seventeenth century, is radically incomplete. The materialist laws of nature must, he says, be supplemented by something else if we are to fold ourselves and our minds fully into our science.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/feb/07/awaiting-new-darwin/

Lire le commentaire dans son contexte
Répondre Signaler un abus



Palmarès