The meme that “everything is at base Physical and that nothing beyond a deeply penetrative inquiry into matter (and Physics) will eventually win out as exclusively sufficient to comprehend Everything” is an intellectual toxin which has escaped its original cage of Scientism and invaded nearly every aspect of modern or post-modern life, thought, and culture. The signs of its death are present on several horizons for souls who are looking and paying attention. But cornered animals fight back viciously and without thoughtfulness…

“I have seen the Future, and it’s murder.” – Leonard Cohen

Yes, a cornered animal in existential fear of their demise will fight viciously. Huge swaths of Gen Z and even newer and yet to arrive generations are or will be subjected to subtle and unbalanced education/indoctrination in harmony with this poisonous worldview. Many will arrive at adulthood, still, on into this 21st century, with liitle or no opportunity to even question it. The hope lies with the autodidacts and free thinkers at present, but there is a significant backlog of accumulated unexamined belief which needs to be gradually subjected to examination and inquiry, and dismantled. The orthodox forces within academia, however, have already reached their pinnacle of influence. By my reckoning, and that of others, perhaps thirty years ago during the ’90s. Cracks in the conceptual veneer have sharpened, and the vast boat is springing leakages here and there. I would like to illustrate a few of the influential and intellectually courageous ‘reality’ pioneers who have been voicing what they regard as what should be obvious shortcomings about the present day received wisdom. And risking their academic livlihoods to do so. As one public intellectual has put it: ‘In the Islamic world’s academia you can voice whatever opinions you like about Darwin and Evolution theory, but may take your life in your hands if you do so about Religion. In the West, it is exactly the opposite.

Thomas Nagel, Philosopher (1937-Present)

“In particular, a very important feature of contemporary intellectual life is the fear of religion. And the sense that a materialist Naturalism including evolutionary theory as a complete explanation of human beings and all their characteristics is an essential bulwark against religion… that it’s really the only alternative and the only thing which will keep a religious worldview at bay. I think this is very widespread, and it has a distorting effect on the science, the inquiry. And I myself, have no use for religion, and to some extent share in this fear. But I think that is a mistake…”

This quote is remarkable for several reasons. First off, its stunning objective honesty. Nagel’s been a very respected figure in analytic philosophy for over 60 years, and has published several extremely influential books and papers in the area of Philosophy of Mind and Ethics. In the interview from which this quote is taken, one immediately is impressed by his stark lack of egotism. One cannot operate in the burgeoning field of Consciousness studies today without reckoning with Nagel’s work. He has a reputation to guard, yet fearlessly walks where his thinking takes him. He was lambasted in the critical review press over his 2012 landmark book ‘Mind and Cosmos’ for highlighting the dubious aspects of Darwinian theory. suggesting it is inadequate and unsuited for explaining how the phenomenon of human consciousness arose. Yet — he is an avowed athiest! He has stated publicly that his preference is that it does not turn out that a God is responsible as the causative agency for either cosmos or humanity. This juxtaposition makes him a true intellectual hero in my view. He represents the sort of objectivity which is the needed remedy to relieve modern culture and academia of its unacknowledged sacred cows, which are limiting and even reversing progress for humanity’s comprehension of humanity.

As the next quote shows, Nagel’s deep decades-long contemplations about first consciousness, and then the notion of subjectivity in general as a fundamental feature of human reality, has forced him to bring into focus foundational assumptions about the hitory of western science. Decisions made at the very outset 400 years ago have directly led to the current contradiction-ridden impasse in everything from theoretical Physics to Psychology and Philosophy. Including so-called Moral Realism. Nagel’s investigatory span is a true seed gift to a necessary renaissance of thought.

“I think the implications (of my findings) are radical only to the extent that the general widespread assumption (persists) that contemporary Physics can aspire to be the Theory of Everything… But if you are realistic about it, it seems to me you have to expect that the future will hold simply unpredictable and extreme changes in our conceptions about the world. It’s already evident from the limitations that were essential to the 17th century scientific revolution. Because what made this incredible progress in the understanding of the physical world possible that we’ve seen since Galileo, was the exclusion of everything mental from the description of the physical world. No qualities arising from human senses were included, color, taste, smell, purpose, intentionality. And that made it possible for a completely mathematical physical science but it left the mind out.”

In other words, how can this ‘science’ be expected to address the Mind-Body Problem (i.e. unravel the workings of consciousness) when it has methodologically forbidden mental phenomena from the outset? Implicit, for me, when I read Nagel, is his belief that other possible ‘sciences’ or methodological choices were and still are possible which would not have to cut off human subjectivity from an understanding of reality in toto. And that is a wonderful and necessary insight. Nagel is an inspiring thinker who steadfastly avoids bias of any sort.

Notes On Thomas Nagel:
1. Comprehensive interview with Robert L. Kuhn, Oct 2026, “Closer To Truth” podcast
2. Blogpost article in reaction to controversial 2012 publication of Nagel’s “Mind and Cosmos”, Oct 2022, “Skirmishes With Reality”

___________________________________________

Steven Meyer, Geologist, Philosopher, Historian (1958-Present)

Although his detractors reoutinely resort to classifying Meyer’s thinking and arguments as non-scientific, any objective look at once reveals the opposite. Meyer is in a unique position to valuably contribute to the exposure of materialism as a completely a-scientific belief commitment because of his early training in computational geology and career in oil-searching seismology analysis. But he soon returned to Cambridge for advanced studies in the philosophy of science because he attended, as a seismologist, a conference on geologic markers for the origins of life. Several scholars there were advocating for a rescucitation of inquiries into cosmic origins and meanings based upon recent advances in astrophysics, cellular biology, computer science, and paleontology. Meyer went on to become a seminal figure in the renewed Intelligent Design movement, known for his rigorous and precise segregating of theistic and purely scientific and philosophic points of discussion. He utilizes a talent for deep penetration into modern biology around cellular function, reproduction, and evolutionary mechanics to argue against the presumption of an entirely random causality for life and its change over time. This presumption is part and parcel of Neo-Darwinism but as Meyer points out from various angles, it is not a supported one in terms of the evidence.

I have found myself continually impressed with him over the years as a proponent of Design, and have migrated from an earlier opinion that was more skeptical. I have also repeatedly found that he outshines his opposing interlocutors in numerous appearances and debates in terms of logical precision and discerning the correct core of an argument or position. His influential work “Signature In The Cell” (2009), in which he cites numerous intricate workings within DNA and related biochemical phenomena as fingerprints of an intelligent agant, rather than random processes, drew heavy attention from the orthodox scientific community, and the ensuing scuffles have, in my view at least, exposed the scientific community’s biases more than anything else.

“Our disagreement is mainly definitional. He (referring to Michael Ruse) doesn’t want to categorize the design hypothesis as a scientific hypothesis but a theological one. And yet, part of Darwinism is the attempt to explain the appearance of deisgn. Darwinism says the appearance of intelligent design is illusory; we argue that is it real. So you have two competing hypotheses trying to explain the same thing, the same pieces of evidence. How is one scientific and the other religious? They are simply competing explanations for the same thing, for biology.”

Notes On Stephen C. Meyer:
1. This one-on-one debate format discussion is almost embarassing in the degree his adversary (a paleontologist) consistently misses the point and avoids taking up any actual presented argument and falls back upon pat cliched phrases, but it succeeds in highlighting Meyer’s grasp of the battleground and his insistence on drilling down into the details. “Intelligent Design and Darwinian Evolution”.
2. Brief, succinct video discussion moderated by Ben Wattenberg on PBS Think Tank, 2000. Good for disentangling covenient confusions between Creationism, Intelligent Design, and criticism of Neo-Darwinism.
3. Three-way conversation focused mainly on the mathematical problems with Neo-Darwinian evolution. Meyer holds up the biology end of the inquiry while Davids Gelerntner (of Unabomber fame) and Berlinski deal with the math. Uncommon Knowledge, 2019 : “Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution”