[PHI 3000] Is nature an underachiever?

In Mind and Cosmos, Thomas Nagel argues that "the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False" because it cannot explain the origin of consciousness and morality. Nagel wants to replace the "Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature" with a teleological one. According to Nagel, only a teleological conception of nature can explain how consciousness and morality came into being.

Since Nagel's "teleological conception of nature" is supposed to be a new "scientific paradigm," it would be useful to see if it can be tested against the empirical world. So, if Nagel's teleological conception of nature were true, we would expect consciousness and morality to be ubiquitous in nature; otherwise, nature would be an underachiever. But is that what we find in nature? Not at all. Of all the living creatures in nature, only a few are conscious creatures (let alone creatures that have morality). Most of life in nature is non-conscious life: organisms such as plants, fungi, bacteria, and the like.

If this is correct, then does it mean that Nagel's teleological conception of nature is disconfirmed?

1. If Nagel's teleological conception of nature were true, then most of life would be conscious.
2. It is not the case that most of life is conscious.
3. Therefore, Nagel's teleological conception of nature is not true.

Or does it mean that nature is a failure in achieving its own goals?

1. If Nagel's teleological conception of nature were true, and nature is not an underachiever, then most of life would be conscious.
2. It is not the case that most of life is conscious.
3. Therefore, either Nagel's teleological conception of nature is not true or nature is an underachiever.

What do you think?