| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"EVOLUTION FRAUD" |
| Date: |
09 Jun 2006 07:25:39 AM |
| Object: |
Professor Antony Flew confesses his belief in a creator! |
Professor Antony Flew confesses his belief in a creator!
Author of "Theology and Falsification," and "Darwinian Evolution" : CHECK
THE COMPLETE WEBSITE :
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/converted-to-creation-antony-flew-former-atheist.htm
"the most famous atheist in the academic world over the last
half-century, Professor Antony Flew of England's University of Reading, now
accepts the existence of God" (Dallas Morning News)
"Professor Antony Flew, a prominent British philosopher who is
considered the world's best-known atheist, has cited advancements in science
as proof of the existence of God." (Insight On The News)
"British professor Antony Flew, for decades one of the world's leading
philosophers of atheism, publicly announced that he now affirms the
existence of a deity." (Dallas Morning News)
"Now, in a remarkable reversal, Mr. Flew holds that the universe was
brought into being by an infinite intelligence." (Dallas Morning News)
"This is comparable to Hugh Hefner announcing that he is becoming a
celibate." (Insight On The News)
Read the three Newspaper articles below:
"Former Atheist Says God Exists"
"An Atheist's Apostasy"
"Academics viewing the universe through a narrow scope should rethink
assumptions"
Although Flew, for the moment rejects Christianity, he gives his personal
views in an interview:
"My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is
the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin
from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason
which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the
impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first
reproducing organisms." (private interview with Antony Flew, Dec 2004)
Former Atheist Says God Exists
By: Cliff Kinkaid (Editor of the AIM Report)
Insight On The News
December 21, 2004
It didn't make news, on the front or back pages of leading American
newspapers, but Professor Antony Flew, a prominent British philosopher who
is considered the world's best-known atheist, has cited advancements in
science as proof of the existence of God. This is comparable to Hugh Hefner
announcing that he is becoming a celibate.
At a symposium sponsored by the Institute for Metascientific Research, Flew
said he has come to believe in God based on developments in DNA research.
Flew, author of the book, Darwinian Evolution, declared, "What I think the
DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in
getting these extraordinarily diverse elements together. The enormous
complexity by which the results were achieved look to me like the work of
intelligence."
Associated Press distributed a December 9 story by religion writer Richard
N. Ostling about Flew's conversion. Flew told AP that his current ideas had
some similarity with those of U.S. "intelligent design" theorists, who
believe the complexity of life points to an intelligent source of life,
rather than the random and natural processes posited by Charles Darwin's
theory of evolution.
Flew's statements have been covered in Britain, where he is a professor, but
we found nothing about his transformation in major American newspapers such
as USA Today, the Washington Post, and the New York Times. Ostling's status
as a religion writer may help explain why. The secular press considers this
a religion story.
To its credit, however, the Seattle Times permitted Jonathan Witt of the
Discovery Institute to write a column noting Flew's conversion in the
context of discussing the usually taboo subject of the holes in Darwinian
theory.
Witt noted that Darwin and his contemporaries thought a single cell was a
simple blob of protoplasm and that it wouldn't have been difficult for
nature to randomly produce something so simple. "In those days the cell was
a black box, a mystery. But in the 20th century, scientists were able to
open that black box and peek inside," he notes. "There they found not a
simple blob, but a world of complex circuits, miniaturized motors and
digital code. We now know that even the simplest functional cell is almost
unfathomably complex, containing at least 250 genes and their corresponding
proteins."
"Darwin's Black Box" is the title of Michael J. Behe's 1996 book. Behe, a
professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, emphasizes the complexity of
molecular systems such as the bacterial flagellum. Identified by electron
microscopes, it is what Behe calls an "irreducibly complex system" that is
necessarily composed of at least three parts: a paddle, a rotor, and a
motor. He argues that Darwinian theory cannot account for it.
But those who believe in intelligent design or find gaping holes in the
theory of evolution frequently encounter a hostile press. The Discovery
Institute recently provided to Accuracy in Media a thick file of complaints
about the way their representatives have been treated by the media,
especially National Public Radio. The Discovery Institute focuses on the
issue of whether there is any evidence of design in nature, rather than
whether there is a designer. Still, its representatives tend to be portrayed
in religious terms by the media.
Such a tactic is common operating procedure by the ACLU, which is determined
to portray any alternative to evolution as religious and therefore not
allowed to be taught or even discussed in the public schools.
Back in 2001, when the Public Broadcasting Service aired the seven-part
series, Evolution, financed by Microsoft co-founder and billionaire Paul G.
Allen, it asked Discovery Institute scientists to appear on the last segment
dealing with God and religion. It was a trick. The institute rejected this
ploy, saying that its representatives had scientific objections to evolution
and that they should be included in the scientific episodes.
PBS went ahead with its one-sided program anyway. In response, the Discovery
Institute produced a 152-page viewers guide, noting that the series distorts
the scientific evidence, ignores scientific disagreements over Darwin's
theory, and misrepresents the theory's critics. Because the PBS series is
still being marketed to high schools around the country, the Discovery
Institute critique continues to be helpful and relevant. You can find it at:
www.reviewevolution.com
PBS and the rest of the media would be well-advised to follow the lead of
Antony Flew, who said that his life has been guided by the principle of
Plato's Socrates: "Follow the evidence, wherever it leads." Journalists can
begin their investigation of the Socratic principle by simply reporting the
facts surrounding Flew's amazing evolution and the implications that his
statements have for a questionable theory that continues to be taught as the
Gospel in the public schools.
.
|
|
| User: "Larry Heath" |
|
| Title: Re: Professor Antony Flew confesses his belief in a creator! |
09 Jun 2006 03:38:31 PM |
|
|
"EVOLUTION FRAUD" <moongod@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7Ndig.12212$9f2.8944@trnddc04...
Professor Antony Flew confesses his belief in a creator!
Author of "Theology and Falsification," and "Darwinian Evolution" : CHECK
THE COMPLETE WEBSITE :
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/converted-to-creation-antony-flew-former-atheist.htm
"the most famous atheist in the academic world over the last
half-century, Professor Antony Flew of England's University of Reading,
now accepts the existence of God" (Dallas Morning News)
"Professor Antony Flew, a prominent British philosopher who is
considered the world's best-known atheist, has cited advancements in
science as proof of the existence of God." (Insight On The News)
"British professor Antony Flew, for decades one of the world's
leading philosophers of atheism, publicly announced that he now affirms
the existence of a deity." (Dallas Morning News)
"Now, in a remarkable reversal, Mr. Flew holds that the universe was
brought into being by an infinite intelligence." (Dallas Morning News)
"This is comparable to Hugh Hefner announcing that he is becoming a
celibate." (Insight On The News)
Read the three Newspaper articles below:
"Former Atheist Says God Exists"
"An Atheist's Apostasy"
"Academics viewing the universe through a narrow scope should rethink
assumptions"
Although Flew, for the moment rejects Christianity, he gives his personal
views in an interview:
"My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is
the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the
origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only
reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause
god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin
of the first reproducing organisms." (private interview with Antony Flew,
Dec 2004)
Former Atheist Says God Exists
By: Cliff Kinkaid (Editor of the AIM Report)
Insight On The News
December 21, 2004
It didn't make news, on the front or back pages of leading American
newspapers, but Professor Antony Flew, a prominent British philosopher who
is considered the world's best-known atheist, has cited advancements in
science as proof of the existence of God. This is comparable to Hugh
Hefner announcing that he is becoming a celibate.
At a symposium sponsored by the Institute for Metascientific Research,
Flew said he has come to believe in God based on developments in DNA
research. Flew, author of the book, Darwinian Evolution, declared, "What I
think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been
involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements together. The
enormous complexity by which the results were achieved look to me like the
work of intelligence."
Associated Press distributed a December 9 story by religion writer Richard
N. Ostling about Flew's conversion. Flew told AP that his current ideas
had some similarity with those of U.S. "intelligent design" theorists, who
believe the complexity of life points to an intelligent source of life,
rather than the random and natural processes posited by Charles Darwin's
theory of evolution.
Flew's statements have been covered in Britain, where he is a professor,
but we found nothing about his transformation in major American newspapers
such as USA Today, the Washington Post, and the New York Times. Ostling's
status as a religion writer may help explain why. The secular press
considers this a religion story.
To its credit, however, the Seattle Times permitted Jonathan Witt of the
Discovery Institute to write a column noting Flew's conversion in the
context of discussing the usually taboo subject of the holes in Darwinian
theory.
Witt noted that Darwin and his contemporaries thought a single cell was a
simple blob of protoplasm and that it wouldn't have been difficult for
nature to randomly produce something so simple. "In those days the cell
was a black box, a mystery. But in the 20th century, scientists were able
to open that black box and peek inside," he notes. "There they found not a
simple blob, but a world of complex circuits, miniaturized motors and
digital code. We now know that even the simplest functional cell is almost
unfathomably complex, containing at least 250 genes and their
corresponding proteins."
"Darwin's Black Box" is the title of Michael J. Behe's 1996 book. Behe, a
professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, emphasizes the complexity
of molecular systems such as the bacterial flagellum. Identified by
electron microscopes, it is what Behe calls an "irreducibly complex
system" that is necessarily composed of at least three parts: a paddle, a
rotor, and a motor. He argues that Darwinian theory cannot account for it.
But those who believe in intelligent design or find gaping holes in the
theory of evolution frequently encounter a hostile press. The Discovery
Institute recently provided to Accuracy in Media a thick file of
complaints about the way their representatives have been treated by the
media, especially National Public Radio. The Discovery Institute focuses
on the issue of whether there is any evidence of design in nature, rather
than whether there is a designer. Still, its representatives tend to be
portrayed in religious terms by the media.
Such a tactic is common operating procedure by the ACLU, which is
determined to portray any alternative to evolution as religious and
therefore not allowed to be taught or even discussed in the public
schools.
Back in 2001, when the Public Broadcasting Service aired the seven-part
series, Evolution, financed by Microsoft co-founder and billionaire Paul
G. Allen, it asked Discovery Institute scientists to appear on the last
segment dealing with God and religion. It was a trick. The institute
rejected this ploy, saying that its representatives had scientific
objections to evolution and that they should be included in the scientific
episodes.
PBS went ahead with its one-sided program anyway. In response, the
Discovery Institute produced a 152-page viewers guide, noting that the
series distorts the scientific evidence, ignores scientific disagreements
over Darwin's theory, and misrepresents the theory's critics. Because the
PBS series is still being marketed to high schools around the country, the
Discovery Institute critique continues to be helpful and relevant. You can
find it at: www.reviewevolution.com
PBS and the rest of the media would be well-advised to follow the lead of
Antony Flew, who said that his life has been guided by the principle of
Plato's Socrates: "Follow the evidence, wherever it leads." Journalists
can begin their investigation of the Socratic principle by simply
reporting the facts surrounding Flew's amazing evolution and the
implications that his statements have for a questionable theory that
continues to be taught as the Gospel in the public schools.
Note dates above and below.
The belief in the Christian god... is an appalling nightmare. I reject
the notion that the whole universe was created by this kind of evil
creature who would create such a thing. - Anthony Flew, March 22, 2005
--
Later Larry
aa #2216
Plonked by Fred Stone, 17 March 2006
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: Professor Antony Flew confesses his belief in a creator! |
09 Jun 2006 08:25:16 AM |
|
|
"EVOLUTION FRAUD" <moongod@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7Ndig.12212$9f2.8944@trnddc04...
Professor Antony Flew confesses his belief in a creator!
Author of "Theology and Falsification," and "Darwinian Evolution" : CHECK
THE COMPLETE WEBSITE :
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/converted-to-creation-antony-flew-former-atheist.htm
"the most famous atheist in the academic world over the last
half-century, Professor Antony Flew of England's University of Reading,
now accepts the existence of God" (Dallas Morning News)
"Professor Antony Flew, a prominent British philosopher who is
considered the world's best-known atheist, has cited advancements in
science as proof of the existence of God." (Insight On The News)
"British professor Antony Flew, for decades one of the world's
leading philosophers of atheism, publicly announced that he now affirms
the existence of a deity." (Dallas Morning News)
"Now, in a remarkable reversal, Mr. Flew holds that the universe was
brought into being by an infinite intelligence." (Dallas Morning News)
"This is comparable to Hugh Hefner announcing that he is becoming a
celibate." (Insight On The News)
Read the three Newspaper articles below:
"Former Atheist Says God Exists"
"An Atheist's Apostasy"
"Academics viewing the universe through a narrow scope should rethink
assumptions"
Although Flew, for the moment rejects Christianity, he gives his personal
views in an interview:
"My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is
the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the
origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only
reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause
god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin
of the first reproducing organisms." (private interview with Antony Flew,
Dec 2004)
Former Atheist Says God Exists
By: Cliff Kinkaid (Editor of the AIM Report)
Insight On The News
December 21, 2004
It didn't make news, on the front or back pages of leading American
newspapers, but Professor Antony Flew, a prominent British philosopher who
is considered the world's best-known atheist, has cited advancements in
science as proof of the existence of God. This is comparable to Hugh
Hefner announcing that he is becoming a celibate.
At a symposium sponsored by the Institute for Metascientific Research,
Flew said he has come to believe in God based on developments in DNA
research. Flew, author of the book, Darwinian Evolution, declared, "What I
think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been
involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements together. The
enormous complexity by which the results were achieved look to me like the
work of intelligence."
Associated Press distributed a December 9 story by religion writer Richard
N. Ostling about Flew's conversion. Flew told AP that his current ideas
had some similarity with those of U.S. "intelligent design" theorists, who
believe the complexity of life points to an intelligent source of life,
rather than the random and natural processes posited by Charles Darwin's
theory of evolution.
Flew's statements have been covered in Britain, where he is a professor,
but we found nothing about his transformation in major American newspapers
such as USA Today, the Washington Post, and the New York Times. Ostling's
status as a religion writer may help explain why. The secular press
considers this a religion story.
To its credit, however, the Seattle Times permitted Jonathan Witt of the
Discovery Institute to write a column noting Flew's conversion in the
context of discussing the usually taboo subject of the holes in Darwinian
theory.
Witt noted that Darwin and his contemporaries thought a single cell was a
simple blob of protoplasm and that it wouldn't have been difficult for
nature to randomly produce something so simple. "In those days the cell
was a black box, a mystery. But in the 20th century, scientists were able
to open that black box and peek inside," he notes. "There they found not a
simple blob, but a world of complex circuits, miniaturized motors and
digital code. We now know that even the simplest functional cell is almost
unfathomably complex, containing at least 250 genes and their
corresponding proteins."
"Darwin's Black Box" is the title of Michael J. Behe's 1996 book. Behe, a
professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, emphasizes the complexity
of molecular systems such as the bacterial flagellum. Identified by
electron microscopes, it is what Behe calls an "irreducibly complex
system" that is necessarily composed of at least three parts: a paddle, a
rotor, and a motor. He argues that Darwinian theory cannot account for it.
But those who believe in intelligent design or find gaping holes in the
theory of evolution frequently encounter a hostile press. The Discovery
Institute recently provided to Accuracy in Media a thick file of
complaints about the way their representatives have been treated by the
media, especially National Public Radio. The Discovery Institute focuses
on the issue of whether there is any evidence of design in nature, rather
than whether there is a designer. Still, its representatives tend to be
portrayed in religious terms by the media.
Such a tactic is common operating procedure by the ACLU, which is
determined to portray any alternative to evolution as religious and
therefore not allowed to be taught or even discussed in the public
schools.
Back in 2001, when the Public Broadcasting Service aired the seven-part
series, Evolution, financed by Microsoft co-founder and billionaire Paul
G. Allen, it asked Discovery Institute scientists to appear on the last
segment dealing with God and religion. It was a trick. The institute
rejected this ploy, saying that its representatives had scientific
objections to evolution and that they should be included in the scientific
episodes.
PBS went ahead with its one-sided program anyway. In response, the
Discovery Institute produced a 152-page viewers guide, noting that the
series distorts the scientific evidence, ignores scientific disagreements
over Darwin's theory, and misrepresents the theory's critics. Because the
PBS series is still being marketed to high schools around the country, the
Discovery Institute critique continues to be helpful and relevant. You can
find it at: www.reviewevolution.com
PBS and the rest of the media would be well-advised to follow the lead of
Antony Flew, who said that his life has been guided by the principle of
Plato's Socrates: "Follow the evidence, wherever it leads." Journalists
can begin their investigation of the Socratic principle by simply
reporting the facts surrounding Flew's amazing evolution and the
implications that his statements have for a questionable theory that
continues to be taught as the Gospel in the public schools.
Supposing, just for the sake of argument, that Flew became the next 'Pat
Robertson', would that make his (alleged) conversion 'proof' that 'God'
exists? Hardly! You still have to face the facts that there isn't even the
eensiest, teensiest, weensiest bit of proof for the existence of 'God'.
What, pleading 'irreducible complexity' equates to Jesus walking on water
and raising people from the dead? That's Nuts!!! If 'God' has to hide
somewhere in the realm of protons, mesons and quarks - and 'he' doesn't -
what is *that* supposed to mean? That Moses' parting of the Red Sea was an
actual historical event, or something? Boy, how desperate do you theists
get? How about asking your 'God' to open up his supernaturally big mouth and
shout out a 'Hello' or something? Otherwise it leads one to the sneaky
suspicion that 'he' is nothing but an imaginary creature who's belief in has
led to incalculable misery, death, and destruction. Some 'God'. Worse, some
'Believers'.
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Kutchie" |
|
| Title: The defendants of ID can offer nothing but tired and discredited arguments. |
09 Jun 2006 10:53:13 AM |
|
|
EVOLUTION FRAUD wrote:
Professor Antony Flew confesses his belief in a creator!
<snip fallacious argument from authority>
Whoops. Nothing left.
Try again, dumbass!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Flews' Confused. Nothing new there. |
09 Jun 2006 07:59:47 AM |
|
|
In article <7Ndig.12212$9f2.8944@trnddc04>, says...
He is quoted as ridiculously saying, "My one and only piece of relevant
evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of
providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first
reproducing species".
Of course his statement is nonsense and propagandized misinformation,
carefully spoonfed to him by associates like Gary Habermas. Flew has
also since admitted that he was probably misled into the above statement
by biased theists who have long targetted him as a trophy for religious
conversion. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't pay him to say this.
After all, he doesn't repudiate any of his previous writings nor does he
accept any of the tenets of xianity, judiasm, etc.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Flews' Confused. Nothing new there. |
09 Jun 2006 08:54:09 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 06:59:47 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In article <7Ndig.12212$9f2.8944@trnddc04>, says...
He is quoted as ridiculously saying, "My one and only piece of relevant
evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of
providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first
reproducing species".
What makes this sad, is that before he retired as a professor of
philosophy, he would have flunked any of his students for such a
classic example of the argument from ignorance.
Of course his statement is nonsense and propagandized misinformation,
carefully spoonfed to him by associates like Gary Habermas. Flew has
also since admitted that he was probably misled into the above statement
by biased theists who have long targetted him as a trophy for religious
conversion. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't pay him to say this.
After all, he doesn't repudiate any of his previous writings nor does he
accept any of the tenets of xianity, judiasm, etc.
They target well-known individuals as though people only thought
something because some authority said so.
Norma McCorvey is a classic example. As though her changing her mind
about abortion after becoming born-again, somehow invalidates Roe v
Wade, or means that nobody else needs one.
They let others do their thinking for them. Even if Flew suddenly
became theist (which he didn't), that neither invalidates atheism nor
means that the rest of us should become theist.
We need to know why we should.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Flews' Confused. Nothing new there. |
09 Jun 2006 01:23:40 PM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, quibbler in episode
<MPG.1ef31eb246c2d66d989a1d@news.readfreenews.net>...
In article <7Ndig.12212$9f2.8944@trnddc04>, says...
He is quoted as ridiculously saying, "My one and only piece of relevant
evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of
providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first
reproducing species".
Of course his statement is nonsense and propagandized misinformation,
carefully spoonfed to him by associates like Gary Habermas. Flew has also
since admitted that he was probably misled into the above statement by
biased theists who have long targetted him as a trophy for religious
conversion. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't pay him to say this.
After all, he doesn't repudiate any of his previous writings nor does he
accept any of the tenets of xianity, judiasm, etc.
Flew also disavowed that previous statement saying he'd been "mistaught"
by the creationist camp.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Professor Antony Flew confesses his belief in a creator! |
11 Jun 2006 07:45:46 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 12:25:39 GMT, "EVOLUTION FRAUD"
<moongod@earthlink.net> wrote:
<sigh> Not this ***** again.
<PLONK!>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Professor Antony Flew confesses his belief in a creator! |
09 Jun 2006 08:29:53 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 12:25:39 GMT, "EVOLUTION FRAUD"
<moongod@earthlink.net> wrote:
Professor Antony Flew confesses his belief in a creator!
No, he doesn't.
What he has said, is that a deistic god that kicked things off and
then left the universe to its own devices, can't be ruled out. He has
since clarified that when he was briefly persuaded by arguments from
ignorance that he was unaware of the current state of scientific
understanding.
It was the god of the ever decreasing gaps that he didn't know had
already been plugged.
He is an old man who didn't recognise fallacies he would have flunked
his students for, before he retired.
Author of "Theology and Falsification," and "Darwinian Evolution" : CHECK
THE COMPLETE WEBSITE :
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/converted-to-creation-antony-flew-former-atheist.htm
"the most famous atheist in the academic world over the last
half-century, Professor Antony Flew of England's University of Reading, now
accepts the existence of God" (Dallas Morning News)
"Professor Antony Flew, a prominent British philosopher who is
considered the world's best-known atheist, has cited advancements in science
as proof of the existence of God." (Insight On The News)
"British professor Antony Flew, for decades one of the world's leading
philosophers of atheism, publicly announced that he now affirms the
existence of a deity." (Dallas Morning News)
"Now, in a remarkable reversal, Mr. Flew holds that the universe was
brought into being by an infinite intelligence." (Dallas Morning News)
"This is comparable to Hugh Hefner announcing that he is becoming a
celibate." (Insight On The News)
And they are all straw men.
Read the three Newspaper articles below:
"Former Atheist Says God Exists"
"An Atheist's Apostasy"
"Academics viewing the universe through a narrow scope should rethink
assumptions"
Why not go straight to the horses mouth? These are Flew's own words:
http://www.rationalistinternational.net/article/20041212_en.html
Sorry to Disappoint, but I'm Still an Atheist!
Prof. Antony Flew
Richard C. Carrier, current Editor in Chief of the Secular Web, tells
me that "the internet has now become awash with rumors" that I "have
converted to Christianity, or am at least no longer an atheist."
Perhaps because I was born too soon to be involved in the internet
world I had heard nothing of this rumour. So Mr. Carrier asks me to
explain myself in cyberspace. This, with the help of the Internet
Infidels, I now attempt.
Those rumours speak false. I remain still what I have been now for
over fifty years, a negative atheist. By this I mean that I construe
the initial letter in the word 'atheist' in the way in which everyone
construes the same initial letter in such words as 'atypical' and
'amoral'. For I still believe that it is impossible either to verify
or to falsify - to show to be false - what David Hume in his Dialogues
concerning Natural Religion happily described as "the religious
hypothesis." The more I contemplate the eschatological teachings of
Christianity and Islam the more I wish I could demonstrate their
falsity.
I first argued the impossibility in 'Theology and Falsification', a
short paper originally published in 1950 and since reprinted over
forty times in different places, including translations into German,
Italian, Spanish, Danish, Welsh, Finnish and Slovak. The most recent
reprint was as part of 'A Golden Jubilee Celebration' in the
October/November 2001 issue of the semi-popular British journal
Philosophy Now, which the editors of that periodical have graciously
allowed the Internet Infidels to publish online:
see "Theology & Falsification."
I can suggest only one possible source of the rumours. Several weeks
ago I submitted to the Editor of Philo (The Journal of the Society of
Humanist Philosophers) a short paper making two points which might
well disturb atheists of the more positive kind. The point more
relevant here was that it can be entirely rational for believers and
negative atheists to respond in quite different ways to the same
scientific developments.
We negative atheists are bound to see the Big Bang cosmology as
requiring a physical explanation; and that one which, in the nature of
the case, may nevertheless be forever inaccessible to human beings.
But believers may, equally reasonably, welcome the Big Bang cosmology
as tending to confirm their prior belief that "in the beginning" the
Universe was created by God.
Again, negative atheists meeting the argument that the fundamental
constants of physics would seem to have been 'fine tuned' to make the
emergence of mankind possible will first object to the application of
either the frequency or the propensity theory of probability 'outside'
the Universe, and then go on to ask why omnipotence should have been
satisfied to produce a Universe in which the origin and rise of the
human race was merely possible rather than absolutely inevitable. But
believers are equally bound and, on their opposite assumptions,
equally justified in seeing the Fine Tuning Argument as providing
impressive confirmation of a fundamental belief shared by all the
three great systems of revealed theistic religion - Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam. For all three are agreed that we human
beings are members of a special kind of creatures, made in the image
of God and for a purpose intended by God.
In short, I recognize that developments in physics coming on the last
twenty or thirty years can reasonably be seen as in some degree
confirmatory of a previously faith-based belief in god, even though
they still provide no sufficient reason for unbelievers to change
their minds. They certainly have not persuaded me.
......and again below. He admits to being taken in by a stardard
theist ploy...
"I have been mistaught by Gerald Schroeder... It was precisely because
he appeared to be so well qualified as a physicist (which I am not)
that I was never inclined to question what he said about physics."
-- Anthony Flew, letter to Richard Carrier, January, 2005
http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369
Antony Flew has retracted one of his recent assertions. In a letter to
me dated 29 December 2004, Flew concedes:
I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that
there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate
matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction.
He blames his error on being "misled" by Richard Dawkins because
Dawkins "has never been reported as referring to any promising work on
the production of a theory of the development of living matter," even
though this is false (e.g., Richard Dawkins and L. D. Hurst,
"Evolutionary Chemistry: Life in a Test Tube," Nature 357: pp.
198-199, 21 May 1992) and hardly relevant: it was Flew's
responsibility to check the state of the field (there are several
books by actual protobiologists published in just the last five
years), rather than wait for the chance possibility that one
particular evolutionist would write on the subject. Now that he has
done what he was supposed to do in the first place, he has retracted
his false statement about the current state of protobiological
science.
Flew also makes another admission: "I have been mistaught by Gerald
Schroeder." He says "it was precisely because he appeared to be so
well qualified as a physicist (which I am not) that I was never
inclined to question what he said about physics." Apart from his
unreasonable plan of trusting a physicist on the subject of
biochemistry (after all, the relevant field is biochemistry, not
physics--yet it would seem Flew does not recognize the difference),
this attitude seems to pervade Flew's method of truthseeking, of
looking to a single author for authoritative information and never
checking their claims (or, as in the case of Dawkins, presumed lack of
claims). As Flew admitted to me, and to Stuart Wavell of the London
Times, and Duncan Crary of the Humanist Network News, he has not made
any effort to check up on the current state of things in any relevant
field (see "No Longer Atheist, Flew Stands by 'Presumption of
Atheism'" and "In the Beginning There Was Something"). Flew has thus
abandoned the very standards of inquiry that led the rest of us to
atheism. It would seem the only way to God is to jettison responsible
scholarship.
Although Flew, for the moment rejects Christianity, he gives his personal
views in an interview:
"My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is
the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin
from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason
which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the
impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first
reproducing organisms." (private interview with Antony Flew, Dec 2004)
Former Atheist Says God Exists
By: Cliff Kinkaid (Editor of the AIM Report)
Insight On The News
December 21, 2004
It didn't make news, on the front or back pages of leading American
newspapers, but Professor Antony Flew, a prominent British philosopher who
is considered the world's best-known atheist, has cited advancements in
science as proof of the existence of God. This is comparable to Hugh Hefner
announcing that he is becoming a celibate.
At a symposium sponsored by the Institute for Metascientific Research, Flew
said he has come to believe in God based on developments in DNA research.
Flew, author of the book, Darwinian Evolution, declared, "What I think the
DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in
getting these extraordinarily diverse elements together. The enormous
complexity by which the results were achieved look to me like the work of
intelligence."
Associated Press distributed a December 9 story by religion writer Richard
N. Ostling about Flew's conversion. Flew told AP that his current ideas had
some similarity with those of U.S. "intelligent design" theorists, who
believe the complexity of life points to an intelligent source of life,
rather than the random and natural processes posited by Charles Darwin's
theory of evolution.
Flew's statements have been covered in Britain, where he is a professor, but
we found nothing about his transformation in major American newspapers such
as USA Today, the Washington Post, and the New York Times. Ostling's status
as a religion writer may help explain why. The secular press considers this
a religion story.
To its credit, however, the Seattle Times permitted Jonathan Witt of the
Discovery Institute to write a column noting Flew's conversion in the
context of discussing the usually taboo subject of the holes in Darwinian
theory.
Witt noted that Darwin and his contemporaries thought a single cell was a
simple blob of protoplasm and that it wouldn't have been difficult for
nature to randomly produce something so simple. "In those days the cell was
a black box, a mystery. But in the 20th century, scientists were able to
open that black box and peek inside," he notes. "There they found not a
simple blob, but a world of complex circuits, miniaturized motors and
digital code. We now know that even the simplest functional cell is almost
unfathomably complex, containing at least 250 genes and their corresponding
proteins."
"Darwin's Black Box" is the title of Michael J. Behe's 1996 book. Behe, a
professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, emphasizes the complexity of
molecular systems such as the bacterial flagellum. Identified by electron
microscopes, it is what Behe calls an "irreducibly complex system" that is
necessarily composed of at least three parts: a paddle, a rotor, and a
motor. He argues that Darwinian theory cannot account for it.
But those who believe in intelligent design or find gaping holes in the
theory of evolution frequently encounter a hostile press. The Discovery
Institute recently provided to Accuracy in Media a thick file of complaints
about the way their representatives have been treated by the media,
especially National Public Radio. The Discovery Institute focuses on the
issue of whether there is any evidence of design in nature, rather than
whether there is a designer. Still, its representatives tend to be portrayed
in religious terms by the media.
Such a tactic is common operating procedure by the ACLU, which is determined
to portray any alternative to evolution as religious and therefore not
allowed to be taught or even discussed in the public schools.
Back in 2001, when the Public Broadcasting Service aired the seven-part
series, Evolution, financed by Microsoft co-founder and billionaire Paul G.
Allen, it asked Discovery Institute scientists to appear on the last segment
dealing with God and religion. It was a trick. The institute rejected this
ploy, saying that its representatives had scientific objections to evolution
and that they should be included in the scientific episodes.
PBS went ahead with its one-sided program anyway. In response, the Discovery
Institute produced a 152-page viewers guide, noting that the series distorts
the scientific evidence, ignores scientific disagreements over Darwin's
theory, and misrepresents the theory's critics. Because the PBS series is
still being marketed to high schools around the country, the Discovery
Institute critique continues to be helpful and relevant. You can find it at:
www.reviewevolution.com
PBS and the rest of the media would be well-advised to follow the lead of
Antony Flew, who said that his life has been guided by the principle of
Plato's Socrates: "Follow the evidence, wherever it leads." Journalists can
begin their investigation of the Socratic principle by simply reporting the
facts surrounding Flew's amazing evolution and the implications that his
statements have for a questionable theory that continues to be taught as the
Gospel in the public schools.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Professor Antony Flew confesses his belief in a creator! |
09 Jun 2006 01:22:48 PM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, EVOLUTION FRAUD in episode
<7Ndig.12212$9f2.8944@trnddc04>...
Professor Antony Flew confesses his belief in a creator! Author of
Boy are *you out of date...
http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=369
"In a letter to me dated 29 December 2004, Flew concedes:
'I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there
were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to
the first living creature capable of reproduction.'"
And:
"Flew also makes another admission: 'I have been mistaught by Gerald
Schroeder.'"
Not to mention:
"In the meantime, Flew wrote 'My "Conversion"' for the Autumn 2005 issue
of Think....Flew writes, 'I can here say only that I myself, having
read' Victor Stenger's book Has Science Found God? 'cannot but agree with
his negative conclusions'"
The furthest Flew has been willing to go is that he thinks maybe there
could have been an impersonal organizing force that started things. It's
very deist and not any kind of "god" you types would recognize.
You should catch the hell up on what's been going on so you don't look so
much like a fool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Ricker" |
|
| Title: Re: Professor Antony Flew confesses his belief in a creator! |
09 Jun 2006 02:22:10 PM |
|
|
In article <msednfrarcnlIRTZnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@megapath.net>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, EVOLUTION FRAUD in episode
<7Ndig.12212$9f2.8944@trnddc04>...
Professor Antony Flew confesses his belief in a creator! Author of
Boy are *you out of date...
http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=369
"In a letter to me dated 29 December 2004, Flew concedes:
'I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there
were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to
the first living creature capable of reproduction.'"
And:
"Flew also makes another admission: 'I have been mistaught by Gerald
Schroeder.'"
Not to mention:
"In the meantime, Flew wrote 'My "Conversion"' for the Autumn 2005 issue
of Think....Flew writes, 'I can here say only that I myself, having
read' Victor Stenger's book Has Science Found God? 'cannot but agree with
his negative conclusions'"
The furthest Flew has been willing to go is that he thinks maybe there
could have been an impersonal organizing force that started things. It's
very deist and not any kind of "god" you types would recognize.
You should catch the hell up on what's been going on so you don't look so
much like a fool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew
Yet I have no doubt that ten years from now, fundies will be touting
"the conversion of Anthony Flew" as evidence for their bankrupt
theology. They don't mind looking like the fools they are, and they sure
as hell don't have any qualms about being dishonest.
Their chief concerns are keeping the collection plates full and shouting
down any voices of reason or sanity that might come wandering in.
--
George Ricker
"Godless in America" by George Ricker is now available at
online book sellers, like amazon.com, and most book retailers.
Go to http://www.godlessinamerica.com for more information.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Professor Antony Flew confesses his belief in a creator! |
09 Jun 2006 08:11:01 PM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, George Ricker in episode
<gSPAMFREEricker-533E60.15220509062006@news-server1.tampabay.rr.com>...
In article <msednfrarcnlIRTZnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@megapath.net>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, EVOLUTION FRAUD in episode
<7Ndig.12212$9f2.8944@trnddc04>...
Professor Antony Flew confesses his belief in a creator! Author of
Boy are *you out of date...
http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=369
"In a letter to me dated 29 December 2004, Flew concedes:
'I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there
were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up
to the first living creature capable of reproduction.'"
And:
"Flew also makes another admission: 'I have been mistaught by Gerald
Schroeder.'"
Not to mention:
"In the meantime, Flew wrote 'My "Conversion"' for the Autumn 2005 issue
of Think....Flew writes, 'I can here say only that I myself, having
read' Victor Stenger's book Has Science Found God? 'cannot but agree
with his negative conclusions'"
The furthest Flew has been willing to go is that he thinks maybe there
could have been an impersonal organizing force that started things. It's
very deist and not any kind of "god" you types would recognize.
You should catch the hell up on what's been going on so you don't look
so much like a fool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew
Yet I have no doubt that ten years from now, fundies will be touting "the
conversion of Anthony Flew" as evidence for their bankrupt theology. They
don't mind looking like the fools they are, and they sure as hell don't
have any qualms about being dishonest.
And my bet is they don't actually know who he *is...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
