Re: Phil's remarks on Focus on the Family
David Campbell (email@example.com)
Fri, 30 Apr 1999 12:04:35 -0400
>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.