Re: Phil's remarks on Focus on the Family

David Campbell (
Fri, 30 Apr 1999 12:04:35 -0400

Moorad wrote:
>One may say that at the molecular level molecules behave in a mindless way,
>which they do. However, statistical mechanics describes the regularity of
>the macroscopic behavior of such a system. When a theorist writes down a
>mathematical model that describes nature and makes correct predictions,
>that certainly is not mindless. If to create the theory that successfully
>describes nature is not mindless, how can the whole thing come about without
>a Mind? The mindlessness that educators are telling us about is pure
>nonsense. It is logically inconsistent to insist that one needs a mind to
>understand nature and to claim, at the same time, that nature is mindless.
>It is true that matter cannot reason but its behavior is "reasonable." Man
>certainly reasons and that is the image of God in man.

I would agree. However, minds regularly use material processes to achieve
their goals. Thus, evidence for material and "mindless" processes is
useless for assessing the presence or absence of mind.

David C.