<p>It may be that the distance between educated amateur and scientific expert has widened since the 19th century, but the religious sensitivities Darwinism inflames seem to have remained fairly consistent.</p><p>We live in an era of scientific triumphalism, when leading researchers in any number of fields claim they are supremely qualified to explain not only how the universe works, but also what it means. Metaphysics, they tell us, can now be considered a subset of physics.</p><p>Thus it's not surprising that distinguished hackles would be raised when a spirited counter-attack is launched by a well-known philosopher who contends that scientists</p><p>a) have conveniently ignored gaping holes in their understanding of how evolution has shaped the world and</p><p><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/02/erewhon-the-1872-novel-about-robot-wars-that-presages-thomas-nagels-problems-with-darwinism-today/273212/">Keep reading...</a></p>