Jim,

"You give no argument from this claim, which is false, in fact.  Nagel is an atheist who rejects creationism."

I did not say Nagel was a creationist or a theist.  I said he came out in favor of creationism.  The intended meaning was that he favors presenting creationism as a legitimate alternative to Darwinian evolutionary theory in the science classroom.  He claims that, for people who believe in God, the rejection of Darwinian theory in favor of creationism is an intellectually sound, scientifically viable move.  This, to me, is being in favor of creationism.  Sorry if that wasn't clear.

As for the "fog of ad hominems" . . . I don't think referring to Nagel as "once reputable," or to the fact that he has made a fool of himself, is necessarily an ad hominem argument.  It's just commentary.  As for the claim that the article could never have appeared in a scholarly journal--true or false, I don't see how that could be construed as ad hominem.  It's attacking the article, not the person who wrote it.

"In short, there is something they don’t want us to read and the hope is that by bashing Nagel, they can discourage us from reading it."

I don't think that is a fair characterization.  I don't think the goal is to prevent the stuff from being read.  Rather, it is to make sure it is not read in ignorance.

Regards,

Jason
Dec. 7, 2009