Prof. Bruce:

Nice account.

On the whole, would you not consider Nagel’s new “synthesis” (or attempt at one) as a positive sign. I was pleased when I first read of Nagel’s *emerging* (OK, bad pun) skepticism of the Darwinian construct and the recognition that not all of life / experience my be successfully reduced to blind chance. Perhaps, he has taken to heart some of the criticisms made by Meyer and Berlinski AND has recognized that no matter how loudly the Darwinians protest against teleology, it has become apparent to him that, at root, Darwinian explanations ARE (or , of necessity, must include) teleology.
One should give Nagel credit for recognizing the underlying (unstated / denied) assumption of Darwinian theory. Without a teleological mechanism, Darwinism falls apart. I forget who it was but in a recent reading this scientist calculated the odds of successful evolution at 1: 10 to the -(minus) 44,000 power – more than all the atoms times all the time in the universe.
Rather shaky ground, one would say.

So on the whole, I consider this effort by Nagel to be beneficial. Let us hope that the committed Darwinists do not continue to lambast him.