Flew has become a Deist

[cbro]

BreakPoint with Charles Colson January 10, 2005

Antony Flew, the 81-year-old British philosophy professor who taught at Oxford and other leading universities, became an atheist at age 15. Throughout his long career he argued—including in debates with an atheist-turned-Christian named C. S. Lewis—that there was a “presumption of atheism,” that is, the existence of a creator could not be proved.

But he’s now been forced to face the evidence. It comes from the Intelligent Design movement, led by Dr. Phillip Johnson and particularly the work of Michael Behe, the Lehigh biochemist who has proven the “irreducible complexity” of the human cell structure. Though eighty-one years old, Flew has not let his thinking fossilize, but has faithfully followed his own dictum to “go where the evidence leads.”

Christian philosophy professor Gary Habermas of Liberty University conducted an interview with Flew that will be published in the winter issue of Philosophia Christi, the journal of the Evangelical Philosophical Society and Biola University. Flew told Habermas that a pivotal point in his thinking was when he realized two major flaws in the various theories of how nature might have created itself. First, he recognized that evolutionary theory has no reasonable explanation for “the first emergence of living from non-living matter”—that is, the origin of life. Second, even if a living cell or primitive animal had somehow assembled itself from non-living chemicals, he reasoned it would have no ability to reproduce.

Flew told Habermas, “This is the creature, the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”

Flew has, thus, become a Deist—that is, he acknowledges God as creator but not as a personal deity. In his opinion, “There is no room either for any supernatural revelation of that God or any transactions between that God and individual human beings.” In fact, he told a group last May that he considers both the Christian God and the Islamic God to be “omnipotent Oriental despots—cosmic Saddam Husseins.”

But a crack is beginning to develop in his opinion that God hasn’t spoken through Scripture. When he reads the first chapter of Genesis, Flew says he’s impressed that a book written thousands of years ago harmonizes with twenty-first-century science. “That this biblical account might be scientifically accurate,” says Flew, “raises the possibility that it is revelation.” A book containing factual statements that no human knew about at the time of writing seems to argue that the authors must have had coaching from the Creator.

The evidence is there for all who will look, as his one-time adversary C. S. Lewis discovered, and as more and more thinking intellectuals are discovering today. So it is that Antony Flew, perhaps the most famous philosopher of atheism, is just a step or two away from the kingdom.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For further reading and information:

Today’s BreakPoint offer: Read Dr. Gary Habermas’s interview with Antony Flew, “ Atheist Becomes Deist: Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Anthony Flew ,” from the winter 2004 issue of Philosophia Christi.

Read more about “irreducible complexity” in the “Worldview for Parents” page titled, “ More Than Coincidence .”

“Famous Atheist Now Believes in God ,” ABC News, 9 December 2004.

Stuart Wavell and Will Iredale, “ Sorry, says atheist-in-chief, I do believe in God after all ,” London Sunday Times, 12 December 2004.

Andrew Klavan, “ Going All the Way: An atheist ‘converts’ to intelligent design. Why so timid, Mr. Flew? ” Wall Street Journal, 24 December 2004.

Read the “ Letter from Antony Flew on Darwinism and Theology ” from Philosophy Now.

Read Flew’s previous position: “ The Presumption of Atheism ” from his 1984 book God Freedom and Immortality: A Critical Analysis.

Jonathan Witt, “ Entertaining the notion of a place of wonder ,” Seattle Times, 20 December 2004.

Peter S. Williams, “ A Change of Mind for Antony Flew ,” Access Research Network.

William Dembski, ed., Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing(ISI, 2004).

Phillip E. Johnson, The Right Questions(InterVarsity, 2002).

[Sacrificial Ram]

BreakPoint with Charles Colson January 10, 2005

Antony Flew, the 81-year-old British philosophy professor who taught at Oxford and other leading universities, became an atheist at age 15. Throughout his long career he argued—including in debates with an atheist-turned-Christian named C. S. Lewis—that there was a “presumption of atheism,” that is, the existence of a creator could not be proved.

But he’s now been forced to face the evidence. It comes from the Intelligent Design movement, led by Dr. Phillip Johnson and particularly the work of Michael Behe, the Lehigh biochemist who has proven the “irreducible complexity” of the human cell structure. Though eighty-one years old, Flew has not let his thinking fossilize, but has faithfully followed his own dictum to “go where the evidence leads.”

Christian philosophy professor Gary Habermas of Liberty University conducted an interview with Flew that will be published in the winter issue of Philosophia Christi, the journal of the Evangelical Philosophical Society and Biola University. Flew told Habermas that a pivotal point in his thinking was when he realized two major flaws in the various theories of how nature might have created itself. First, he recognized that evolutionary theory has no reasonable explanation for “the first emergence of living from non-living matter”—that is, the origin of life. Second, even if a living cell or primitive animal had somehow assembled itself from non-living chemicals, he reasoned it would have no ability to reproduce.

Flew told Habermas, “This is the creature, the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”

Flew has, thus, become a Deist—that is, he acknowledges God as creator but not as a personal deity. In his opinion, “There is no room either for any supernatural revelation of that God or any transactions between that God and individual human beings.” In fact, he told a group last May that he considers both the Christian God and the Islamic God to be “omnipotent Oriental despots—cosmic Saddam Husseins.”

But a crack is beginning to develop in his opinion that God hasn’t spoken through Scripture. When he reads the first chapter of Genesis, Flew says he’s impressed that a book written thousands of years ago harmonizes with twenty-first-century science. “That this biblical account might be scientifically accurate,” says Flew, “raises the possibility that it is revelation.” A book containing factual statements that no human knew about at the time of writing seems to argue that the authors must have had coaching from the Creator.

The evidence is there for all who will look, as his one-time adversary C. S. Lewis discovered, and as more and more thinking intellectuals are discovering today. So it is that Antony Flew, perhaps the most famous philosopher of atheism, is just a step or two away from the kingdom.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For further reading and information:

Today’s BreakPoint offer: Read Dr. Gary Habermas’s interview with Antony Flew, “ Atheist Becomes Deist: Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Anthony Flew ,” from the winter 2004 issue of Philosophia Christi.

Read more about “irreducible complexity” in the “Worldview for Parents” page titled, “ More Than Coincidence .”

“Famous Atheist Now Believes in God ,” ABC News, 9 December 2004.

Stuart Wavell and Will Iredale, “ Sorry, says atheist-in-chief, I do believe in God after all ,” London Sunday Times, 12 December 2004.

Andrew Klavan, “ Going All the Way: An atheist ‘converts’ to intelligent design. Why so timid, Mr. Flew? ” Wall Street Journal, 24 December 2004.

Read the “ Letter from Antony Flew on Darwinism and Theology ” from Philosophy Now.

Read Flew’s previous position: “ The Presumption of Atheism ” from his 1984 book God Freedom and Immortality: A Critical Analysis.

Jonathan Witt, “ Entertaining the notion of a place of wonder ,” Seattle Times, 20 December 2004.

Peter S. Williams, “ A Change of Mind for Antony Flew ,” Access Research Network.

William Dembski, ed., Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing(ISI, 2004).

Phillip E. Johnson, The Right Questions(InterVarsity, 2002).
Futher update can be found here.. I am not too particuarly impressed with his reasoning.


http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369

[flipper]

Futher update can be found here.. I am not too particuarly impressed with his reasoning.

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369

Yeah, I'm not awestruck by his arguments and I'm a tad skeptical that he's been trying to keep on top of the scientific literature, particularly dealing with evolution and abiogenesis.

Actually, the article alludes to this:


Nor has he examined any of the literature of the past five or ten years on the science of life's origin, which has more than answered his call for "constructing a naturalistic theory" of the origin of life

It's my view that we're getting close to a major breakthrough on synthetic abiogenesis as there have been a number of significant gains in the last year alone and there are a number of attempts currently underway that approach the problem from the top down (the bare minimum of parts to create a working cell) and the bottom up (RNA/protein replication).

My money is on the Szostak Lab at Harvard Medical School: http://www.hhmi.org/research/investigators/szostak.html

If the breakthroughs in artificial life do occur, where will that leave Flew?

[shunyadragon]

Yeah, I'm not awestruck by his arguments and I'm a tad skeptical that he's been trying to keep on top of the scientific literature, particularly dealing with evolution and abiogenesis.

Actually, the article alludes to this:



It's my view that we're getting close to a major breakthrough on synthetic abiogenesis as there have been a number of significant gains in the last year alone and there are a number of attempts currently underway that approach the problem from the top down (the bare minimum of parts to create a working cell) and the bottom up (RNA/protein replication).

My money is on the Szostak Lab at Harvard Medical School: http://www.hhmi.org/research/investigators/szostak.html

If the breakthroughs in artificial life do occur, where will that leave Flew?
An absent minded 81 year-old intellectual that forgot he was an atheist.

[flipper]

An absent minded 81 year-old intellectual that forgot he was an atheist.

I wonder if his changing position is anything to do with his advanced years? Is his change in position motivated entirely by an open intellectual clarity or is he not entirely at peace with his own atheism when now confronted by his own mortality?

It's not likely we'll ever know. I just don't think he appears to have given the question of pre-biotic origins a recent re-consideration, but he appears to be basing many of his doubts upon it.

[Anthem]

this is kinda old news, about a month old. this is the third board on which i have seen this one and the responses have been remarkably simiar.

if anyone cares: http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew

[WILLOWTREE]

An absent minded 81 year-old intellectual that forgot he was an atheist.The above is proof that evidence doesn't matter.

Anyone who embraces God is insulted because God cannot exist because it just can't be and anyone who says otherwise is (pick any insult).

The above is the atheist argument in a nut shell: Epitome of circularity.

Flew's conversion and your responses equal total humiliation.

Flew's age "argument" is saying older persons are dumb and shouldn't be listened to. Quite the opposite, everyone knows the older you get the smarter you get.

There is absolutely nowhere for you God-hating atheists to go on this one.

Flew's arguments are not as you just assert - if they were he would not of converted.

WT

[WILLOWTREE]

Behe proved what we all know.

Atheist assertions contrary prove evidence does not matter. Loyalty to worldview controls - not science.

The Behe evidence smashes evolution single-handedly and the refusal to admit and embrace prove the God-sense removal penalty claims of Romans.

BTW, how does the cuckoo bird know to fly thousands of miles to its mother who it has never seen before ?

Let the senseless moronic ID evasions begin.

WT

[flipper]

WillowTree:


The Behe evidence smashes evolution single-handedly and the refusal to admit and embrace prove the God-sense removal penalty claims of Romans.

Hardly. I rather like this assessment of the Behe position:


First, let's be clear about something. Michael Behe has not created a "Theory of Intelligent Design" (ID). He offers no general laws, models, or explanations for how design happens, no testable predictions, and no possible way to falsify his hybrid evolution/ID hypothesis. He is simply claiming that design is a fact that is easily detectable in biochemical systems. The real science of ID is yet to come, and Behe just wants to wedge the door open a bit. So what does this magic Intelligent Design Detection Kit look like? Basically open the box and all it contains is a tweezer. Use it to pluck out any part of a system, and if the system stops functioning properly, it must be the product of design. Why? Because it proves that the system was "Irreducibly Complex" (IC)...

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/behe.shtml

Furthermore, two of his icons in the book, the mousetrap and the flagellum have both been shown to demonstrate compexity that is, in fact, reducible. Once you can show a potential evolutionary pathway, Irreducible Complexity falls dead in the traces.

Reading Anthem's link, I notice one thing in particular:



HABERMAS: I agree that near death experiences do not evidence the doctrines of either heaven or hell. But do you think these evidential cases increase the possibility of some sort of an afterlife, again, given your theism?

FLEW: I still hope and believe there’s no possibility of an afterlife.

So I'm wrong, it seems. He's not really getting edgy about the imminent prospect of death after all. However, his answer here does seem a little strange, but not an overly-intellectual or even a thoughtful response.

I would have liked to have read more about the arguments that persuaded him towards ID. I have read it reported elsewhere that the problems with abiogenesis were most challenging, a position I would disagree with when, as indicated by major abiogenesis researchers, we may be at the cusp of a breakthrough.

[cbro]

[QUOTE=flipper]Yeah, I'm not awestruck by his arguments and I'm a tad skeptical that he's been trying to keep on top of the scientific literature, particularly dealing with evolution and abiogenesis.

Actually, the article alludes to this:

It's my view that we're getting close to a major breakthrough on synthetic abiogenesis as there have been a number of significant gains in the last year alone and there are a number of attempts currently underway that approach the problem from the top down (the bare minimum of parts to create a working cell) and the bottom up (RNA/protein replication).

My money is on the Szostak Lab at Harvard Medical School: http://www.hhmi.org/research/investigators/szostak.html

If the breakthroughs in artificial life do occur, where will that leave Flew?

If they don't occur that will leave you with enough Faith to be a person of my sig.and me with not enough Faith to be an Atheist

[flipper]

I doubt any explanation of abiogenesis will be definitive because of fossil record. I am looking for a reasonable explanation, backed up with good scientific data. I think based on what we have learnt so far about the behavior of RNA and from sequenced RNA data tells us that abiogenesis is a reasonable conclusion.

It's not like my beliefs are propped up on a "but it must be true" blind faith. I continue to maintain them because each year we move closer to understanding the puzzle. Our understanding of the early earth and how biochemistry works is increasing each year and a solution to the abiogenesis mystery becomes more and more feasible.

Do I have issues with why it is a hard problem? Not really, bearing in mind the paucity of evidence we have for conditions on an early earth. Most of the ancient rock has long been subducted (erasing any microfossil or chemical evidence for conditions on the early earth) and that which has not been has undergone heavy metamorphosis so the starting variables are very open. Furthermore, nature had millions of years and wherein countless trillions of molecular interactions took place in a wide variety of different situations and conditions. Rather a big and diverse lab, I would argue, and tough to recreate in controlled conditions. Nevertheless, we are doing it. The gaps are closing, just as has happened again and again in biology.

[cbro]

[QUOTE=flipper]I doubt any explanation of abiogenesis will be definitive because of fossil record. I am looking for a reasonable explanation, backed up with good scientific data. I think based on what we have learnt so far about the behavior of RNA and from sequenced RNA data tells us that abiogenesis is a reasonable conclusion.

It's not like my beliefs are propped up on a "but it must be true" blind faith. I continue to maintain them because each year we move closer to understanding the puzzle. Our understanding of the early earth and how biochemistry works is increasing each year and a solution to the abiogenesis mystery becomes more and more feasible.

Do I have issues with why it is a hard problem? Not really, bearing in mind the paucity of evidence we have for conditions on an early earth. Most of the ancient rock has long been subducted (erasing any microfossil or chemical evidence for conditions on the early earth) and that which has not been has undergone heavy metamorphosis so the starting variables are very open. Furthermore, nature had millions of years and wherein countless trillions of molecular interactions took place in a wide variety of different situations and conditions. Rather a big and diverse lab, I would argue, and tough to recreate in controlled conditions. Nevertheless, we are doing it. The gaps are closing, just as has happened again and again in biology.

Your Faith that "abiogenesis is a reasonable conclusion" is like the Faith of the person who will say that because he can see that the seawater he has poured out of his bucket onto the ground is not running back into the sea, he can be sure that some day he will empty the sea. that person can also think that he can be more sure of his conclusion then those who think that they can climb a mountain where God lives at the top. The problem is that both you flipper, and them can spend all your lives in seeking your goals, only to find out that you were seeking the god of this world and not the true God of all existence that Jesus showed is His Father.

[shunyadragon]

I wonder if his changing position is anything to do with his advanced years? Is his change in position motivated entirely by an open intellectual clarity or is he not entirely at peace with his own atheism when now confronted by his own mortality?

It's not likely we'll ever know. I just don't think he appears to have given the question of pre-biotic origins a recent re-consideration, but he appears to be basing many of his doubts upon it.
Deists in general are not concerned with their mortality in the next world as theists would be. Flew has always been somewhat of a lose intellectual atheists. It appears some of the out-dated arguments concenring the origins of life made a late delayed impresion on him.

[shunyadragon]

The above is proof that evidence doesn't matter.

Anyone who embraces God is insulted because God cannot exist because it just can't be and anyone who says otherwise is (pick any insult).

The above is the atheist argument in a nut shell: Epitome of circularity.
It is probably not wise to put a diverse group of people in to a nut shell and stereotype them.

Flew's conversion and your responses equal total humiliation.


Flew's age "argument" is saying older persons are dumb and shouldn't be listened to. Quite the opposite, everyone knows the older you get the smarter you get.
My reference to Flew's age was based on the fact that in the interview he admited he had not looked at recent scientific developments concerning abiogenesis. A philosopher of Flew's suposed calibre would not base his conclusion of twenty to thirty year old knowledge.


There is absolutely nowhere for you God-hating atheists to go on this one.

Flew's arguments are not as you just assert - if they were he would not of converted.

WT
Flew did not in reality convert. He basically says he has opened the door to the possibility of the existence of God in more of a Deist context. I feel by his own admision he has left many holes in his logic and his knowledge of modern science.

[cbro]

[QUOTE=flipper]WillowTree:

Hardly. I rather like this assessment of the Behe position:

First, let's be clear about something. Michael Behe has not created a "Theory of Intelligent Design" (ID). He offers no general laws, models, or explanations for how design happens, no testable predictions, and no possible way to falsify his hybrid evolution/ID hypothesis. He is simply claiming that design is a fact that is easily detectable in biochemical systems. The real science of ID is yet to come, and Behe just wants to wedge the door open a bit. So what does this magic Intelligent Design Detection Kit look like? Basically open the box and all it contains is a tweezer. Use it to pluck out any part of a system, and if the system stops functioning properly, it must be the product of design. Why? Because it proves that the system was "Irreducibly Complex" (IC)...
You mean you want God to explain His general laws,models and how the design of the creation happened? Is that because you think they are different than the law and processes humans use? You think that they must be different because of how foolish it would appear if anyone said that a clock found on the beach was the result of wave action on the rocks and sand of the beach?
How is abiogenesis not a way to falsify the ID hypothesis?
How is the system stopping to function, not a valid testable prediction or proof that it is irreducibly complex?

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/behe.shtml

Furthermore, two of his icons in the book, the mousetrap and the flagellum have both been shown to demonstrate compexity that is, in fact, reducible. Once you can show a potential evolutionary pathway, Irreducible Complexity falls dead in the traces.
You mean that any example of reducible complexity proves that there is no such thing as irreducible complexity?
Reading Anthem's link, I notice one thing in particular:

So I'm wrong, it seems. He's not really getting edgy about the imminent prospect of death after all. However, his answer here does seem a little strange, but not an overly-intellectual or even a thoughtful response.
what answer
I would have liked to have read more about the arguments that persuaded him towards ID. I have read it reported elsewhere that the problems with abiogenesis were most challenging, a position I would disagree with when, as indicated by major abiogenesis researchers, we may be at the cusp of a breakthrough.
Are you saying that we can't be sure we are on the cusp until the breakthrough happens, but we do have enought now to have Faith that it will happen?

[SpinyNorman]

I love to watch the athiests scatter to cover their bases when things like this come up.

Deny, deny, deny.

[rogero]

[QUOTE=flipper]WillowTree:

Hardly. I rather like this assessment of the Behe position:

First, let's be clear about something. Michael Behe has not created a "Theory of Intelligent Design" (ID). He offers no general laws, models, or explanations for how design happens, no testable predictions, and no possible way to falsify his hybrid evolution/ID hypothesis. He is simply claiming that design is a fact that is easily detectable in biochemical systems. The real science of ID is yet to come, and Behe just wants to wedge the door open a bit. So what does this magic Intelligent Design Detection Kit look like? Basically open the box and all it contains is a tweezer. Use it to pluck out any part of a system, and if the system stops functioning properly, it must be the product of design. Why? Because it proves that the system was "Irreducibly Complex" (IC)...
You mean you want God to explain His general laws,models and how the design of the creation happened? Is that because you think they are different than the law and processes humans use? You think that they must be different because of how foolish it would appear if anyone said that a clock found on the beach was the result of wave action on the rocks and sand of the beach?
How is abiogenesis not a way to falsify the ID hypothesis?
How is the system stopping to function, not a valid testable prediction or proof that it is irreducibly complex?

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/behe.shtml

Furthermore, two of his icons in the book, the mousetrap and the flagellum have both been shown to demonstrate compexity that is, in fact, reducible. Once you can show a potential evolutionary pathway, Irreducible Complexity falls dead in the traces.
You mean that any example of reducible complexity proves that there is no such thing as irreducible complexity?
Reading Anthem's link, I notice one thing in particular:

So I'm wrong, it seems. He's not really getting edgy about the imminent prospect of death after all. However, his answer here does seem a little strange, but not an overly-intellectual or even a thoughtful response.
what answer
I would have liked to have read more about the arguments that persuaded him towards ID. I have read it reported elsewhere that the problems with abiogenesis were most challenging, a position I would disagree with when, as indicated by major abiogenesis researchers, we may be at the cusp of a breakthrough.
Are you saying that we can't be sure we are on the cusp until the breakthrough happens, but we do have enought now to have Faith that it will happen?
Cbro,

Why haven't you figured out yet how to use the TWeb "quote" feature? Your comments, as trivial and inarticulate as they are, would have perhaps a slight bit more gravitas if you would learn to format your replies correctly.

Here's some free advice for ya: Start a quotation with "
' (removed the quotation symbol, these are just for reference, not part of the actual text. Then (and this is VERY important) end the quoted text wth the syntax "". Note: quotation marks removed!

Do you believe that posting on Tweb sounding like a quasi-literate ignoramus helps your cause? Your cause seems to be of Biblical literalist legalistic Fundamentalist. Thank God I got out of that mindset long ago.

R

Your factious man,

R

[EvoUK]

I love to watch the athiests scatter to cover their bases when things like this come up.

Deny, deny, deny.

Really? I think it's more amusing watching you lot make mountains out of mole hills. He's entertaining the idea of becomming deist- he still has the same low opinion of you god as he used to. There's not a massive difference between your average atheist and your average deist anyways.

But carry on thinking htis is something important- it's sweet.

[Solly]

Is this still news? Does the superstructure of Christianity need shoreing up with the intellectual quibbles of an aged and untrendy British philosopher?

[Abigail]

Does the superstructure of Christianity need shoreing up with the intellectual quibbles of an aged and untrendy British philosopher?'On Christ the solid Rock we stand...all other ground is sinking sand'

[Higon]

Good call Mr. Flew.

[EvoUK]

Yeah- bless the senile old coot!

Aaaw!

[cbro]

[QUOTE=rogero][QUOTE=cbro]
Cbro,

Why haven't you figured out yet how to use the TWeb "quote" feature? Your comments, as trivial and inarticulate as they are, would have perhaps a slight bit more gravitas if you would learn to format your replies correctly.

Here's some free advice for ya: Start a quotation with "". Note: quotation marks removed!

Do you believe that posting on Tweb sounding like a quasi-literate ignoramus helps your cause? Your cause seems to be of Biblical literalist legalistic Fundamentalist. Thank God I got out of that mindset long ago.

R

Your factious man,

Last time I replied to you, I was warned that it was my fault you were going off-topic, but since I am the OP, maybe that won't happen now. So all I will say is that it is better to be a christian and not say so, then to say so, with things like wearing a cross, and then act like a bitter old man who should have no doubt that if there is a God, he is going to Hell,because of a wrong Faith like as I say in my signature.

[cbro]

[QUOTE=Higon]Good call Mr. Flew.

Who is going to call Flew, EvoUK?

[rogero]

[QUOTE=rogero][QUOTE=cbro]
Cbro,

Why haven't you figured out yet how to use the TWeb "quote" feature? Your comments, as trivial and inarticulate as they are, would have perhaps a slight bit more gravitas if you would learn to format your replies correctly.

Here's some free advice for ya: Start a quotation with "". Note: quotation marks removed!

Do you believe that posting on Tweb sounding like a quasi-literate ignoramus helps your cause? Your cause seems to be of Biblical literalist legalistic Fundamentalist. Thank God I got out of that mindset long ago.

R

Your factious man,

Last time I replied to you, I was warned that it was my fault you were going off-topic, but since I am the OP, maybe that won't happen now. So all I will say is that it is better to be a christian and not say so, then to say so, with things like wearing a cross, and then act like a bitter old man who should have no doubt that if there is a God, he is going to Hell,because of a wrong Faith like as I say in my signature.

I see you still haven't figured it out. :lol:

[rogero]

Good call Mr. Flew.

Who is going to call Flew, EvoUK?

Cbro, do you see the way I closed the "quote" delimiters? No? Oh, forget it.

Now, what the heck do you mean by your cryptic answer (in bolded text, for your reading convenience)?

[cbro]

[QUOTE=rogero][QUOTE=cbro][QUOTE=rogero]

I see you still haven't figured it out. :lol:

Like you still can't figure out the true faith I explain in my sig.Which is too sad to laugh at.

[cbro]

QUOTE=rogeroCbro, do you see the way I closed the "quote" delimiters? No? Oh, forget it.

Now, what the heck do you mean by your cryptic answer (in bolded text, for your reading convenience)?

Does anyone see the "quote delimiters" and the "bolded text" or is he seeing what does not exist? Maybe because the faith on which he bases his life has as much of a base in reality as those other things have in this post and so he has no personal knowledge of Jesus love for him.

rogero do agree with EvoUK who says tweb is not a club because "I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member"?
If so, that would show why we don't understand each other.

[cbro]

QUOTE=Solly]Is this still news? Does the superstructure of Christianity need shoreing up with the intellectual quibbles of an aged and untrendy British philosopher?
God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, not of the philosophers and scientists.
He is to be found only by the way taught in the Gospel. - B Pascal
quote by cbro
"Just because Pascal said it does not mean it is correct. If he is correct, there could be no Bible base to philosophy or science and so no true christian philosophers or scientists. Which shows our need to depend on God to know what is true, as I say in my signature."

[lucaspa]

The Behe evidence smashes evolution single-handedly and the refusal to admit and embrace prove the God-sense removal penalty claims of Romans.


No evasions. Behe undercuts his own argument that IC structures can't arise by chance:

"Let me inject a note of caution: some systems require several pieces but not ones that need to be closely matched. For example, suppose you were walking in the woods and came across an old log, where the wind had blown a tree branch onto it, and the branch was perpendicular to the log. Here you have an irreducibly complex system -- a lever and a fulcrum. If there were a boulder nearby, you possibly could use the lever and fulcrum to move it. So some systems require several parts but not closely matched ones." Michael Behe, Intelligent design theory as a tool for analyzing biochemical systems in Mere Creation, Science, Faith, and Intelligent Design edited by William A. Dembski, 1998, page 179

Once the IC system forms, even Behe's strawman version of natural selection can make the system very complex.

Howver, Behe's arguments are even worse than that. As noted, Behe used a strawman and limited view of natural selection and Darwinian evolution. This paper shows clearly that IC structures can be made by Darwinian evolution:

http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/JTB.html

Let the Willowtree evasions begin.

[lucaspa]

God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, not of the philosophers and scientists.
He is to be found only by the way taught in the Gospel. - B Pascal [/b]
quote by cbro
"Just because Pascal said it does not mean it is correct. If he is correct, there could be no Bible base to philosophy or science and so no true christian philosophers or scientists. Which shows our need to depend on God to know what is true, as I say in my signature."
Cbro, what Flew did was repeat the steps of Hume in the late 1700s. Hume was an atheist but could not find an answer to the Argument from Design. In Hume's day, the "design" was plants and animals. Well, natural selection gave an answer to the designs there.

So, Hume was arguing from ignorance. In Hume's case, it was a genuine ignorance in that natural selection was not known AT ALL. To anyone. Unfortunately, Flew is also arguing from ignorance but it is a dishonest ignorance. What Flew considers so puzzling is, in fact, known. It is just that FLEW does not know it.

So, the arguments that Flew used to justify the existence of deity are flawed. That does not mean that God does not exist. Just that the ARGUMENTS Flew used to decide God existed are wrong. Do you see the difference?

[lucaspa]

Who is going to call Flew, EvoUK?
Anyone can. But I suspect Flew has already gotten the message. But whether Flew admits he made an error in judgement is not the point. Flew made statements/ideas about the existence of God. He also stated ideas about what is known and what is not. Those ideas are independent of Flew. As I noted, the arguments are very similar to Hume's. What is known about the origin of life is public knowledge.

So, the issue is whether the IDEAS and ARGUMENTS are correct or not. Not whether Flew ever retracts what he said. The ideas and arguments are not correct.

[lucaspa]

It's my view that we're getting close to a major breakthrough on synthetic abiogenesis as there have been a number of significant gains in the last year alone and there are a number of attempts currently underway that approach the problem from the top down (the bare minimum of parts to create a working cell) and the bottom up (RNA/protein replication).

My money is on the Szostak Lab at Harvard Medical School: http://www.hhmi.org/research/investigators/szostak.html

If the breakthroughs in artificial life do occur, where will that leave Flew?
I think the breakthru happened over 30 years ago. Life from non-life has already been made:
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/issue1.htm
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html
http://www.christianforums.com/t155621

[lucaspa]

The above is proof that evidence doesn't matter.

Anyone who embraces God is insulted because God cannot exist because it just can't be and anyone who says otherwise is (pick any insult).

The above is the atheist argument in a nut shell: Epitome of circularity.

Flew's conversion and your responses equal total humiliation.

Flew's age "argument" is saying older persons are dumb and shouldn't be listened to. Quite the opposite, everyone knows the older you get the smarter you get.

There is absolutely nowhere for you God-hating atheists to go on this one.
1. We're not atheists here.
2. Poor reasoning and ignorance happen to old people and young ones.
3. It's not that Flew says God exists, but that the ARGUMENTS and REASONS Flew uses are not correct. So, what happens if someone TRUSTS Flew and decides to believe based on Flew's "authority"? What happens to that person's view of Christianity when he finds out the Flew's arguments and reasons are frauds? You lose a potential Christian because he won't trust any Christian again.


Flew's arguments are not as you just assert - if they were he would not of converted.

WTFlew's arguments are as we have claimed: based on Flew's ignorance. He "converted" for the wrong reasons. Now, if Flew had told me that he'd had personal experience of Jesus Christ, I would have been a lot happier. But to base conversion on ignorance of science? Is that what you really want, Willowtree?