Look, -57, why waste time on a mediocre plagiarist such as Menton? Much of his material centers on teh argument that evolution cannot be a completely random process. Of course, evolutionary thinkers never said that it was completely random. But that is not exactly my point. My point is that he feels he is making some sort of original contribution by arguing that where there is complex order, there has to be an ordering mind. All he is doing is presenting a very mediocre job of plagiarizing a major philosophical argument for God that more than one major philosopher has stated far more completely and eloquently than has Mention. If this argument appeals to you, then you might want to read the writings of the famous American philosopher-theologian Charles Hartshorne (1897-2000). He can really make this sing in ways Menton can't even imagine. Also, major philosophers such as Hartshorne are far better in dealing with sticky pints that can be easily introjection by skeptics, all of which Menton fails to address. Suppose matter isn't passive, inert, dead, suppose all of matter has a mind, suppose all entities, in all their aspects consist exclusively of souls, then do we really need a God still? Hartshorne is a panpsychist and can really address that objection or at least provide sufficient argumentation to easily overcome it. What about the fact there is definitely chaos, chance, randomness, and indeterminacy in the universe? Certainly, as Hume argued, that would discredit a designing mind or God, a skeptic may well argue. Again, major philosophers such as Hartshorne have addressed that issue. Science sees no purpose in the universe, so why bother with a God? Again, major philosophers have answered that objection, especially Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947). Isn't order nothing more than a purely human projection onto nature, as there is absolutely no sensory experience of causality, hence absolutely no scientific proof for causality, as again Hume so aptly argued? Again, major philosophers such as Whitehead have provided a solid answer here. Why not save a step? If you accept that God is an organized entity and not in any way created, why not just stop and say scientific laws are just there and were created by nothing? Again, major philosophers such as Whitehead have addressed that one. What about the fact that there are very few arguments you can't wiggle out of if you try hard enough? Who says you can't wiggle out of this proof for God if you try hard enough, and if you accept that, then what? Haven't you got any other arguments for God? Again, major philosophers such as Hartshorne have addressed that objection. See, proofs for the existence of God are a very sticky business that require loads of careful philosophical thought in order to even begin to offer satisfying results. So you need to bring in the biggies here. Hartshorne, for example, has been called one of the most God-intoxicated philosophers of all time, as well as the Einstein of contemporary religious thought. Furthermore, that is nothing incomparable about affirming God and evolution. For example, I have argued that creation is God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness and mere potentiality into self-consciousness and self-actualization. I have also pointed out the Christian mystical tradition introduced a similar idea. I have also argued that the reluctance among many to accept evolution is based on a false model of God, the classical or traditional Christian model, which was based essentially on Hellenic philosophy and which wrongly argued that God cannot change. In short, God doesn't change, so neither we or the universe. Evolution, then, is absolutely out of the question. However, as I said, I and many other contemporary theologians have argued that is a false model of God. I can go into details here, if that is what you want. I am just giving the general jist for now. Bottom line: There are plenty of far more solid sources to rely on than Menton.
