Posted on 01/10/2005 2:47:28 PM PST by Mr. Silverback
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.
You stoled my thunder.Did he see the light because of the question of his own mortallity or because age comes with wisdom? I think these two are the same thing.
Great minds think alike!
ICR is more ridiculous than the Disc. Inst.
[C. S. Lewis used to be an atheist. He finally concluded, and documents his reasons, that it is the most logically unsupportable position to the point that he did not believe there was really any such thing as an atheist, no matter how much someone would claim to be one.]
19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,...Ro:1-19-22
You've never heard of gene duplication?
"ICR is more ridiculous than the Disc. Inst."
I certainly hope that you include me in that "ridiculous" category. I would be happy to be so honored (Matthew 5:11).
Oh, BTW, I forgive you, and may God Bless you with His wisdom and may you know the Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.
"The discovery institute started this mess with "creation science" 25 years ago. Many of the same professional creationists are still at the old game, simply shifting their semantics to "ID" and abandoning the 6000 year old earth nonsense because they couldn't sell it anymore."
Narby, the Institute of Creation Research and the ID folks are two separate camps. ICR, with which I identify my basic beliefs, is a strictly special creationist group. The LeHigh Biochemist that is pusing ID is a theistic evolutionist. These two groups do not get along at all. They certainly aren't conspiring to get creationism in the schools. Theistic evolutionists don't have any more respect for creationists than you do.
The charge that ID is watered down creationism just isn't so. It is different folks, with different agendas.
The only thing the two groups have in common is that both believe in the necessity of some form of creative or guiding deity.
Denigrate both groups if you must, but stop falsely stating they are the same. That is a falsehood.
That's like saying the feminists and the enviros are two different groups. But the result is the same, those guys voted for Kerry and the IDers and creationists both have dieties to push.
"That's like saying the feminists and the enviros are two different groups. But the result is the same, those guys voted for Kerry and the IDers and creationists both have dieties to push."
C'mon. You know that isn't a good analogy. Besides, what my point was is that IDers are not "creationists in disguise" as you and others have implied or directly stated.
If you want to put down Iders, then do it based upon what they are actually proposing (which I'm not sure of myself), not on a straw man fallacy that equates them with special creationists like myself that hold to a literal view of Genesis from a Conservative Evangelical Christian perspective. In all kindness, I think you are better than that.
And neither groups seem inclined to defend their own beliefs, only to attack. I've have posted critiques on Genesis 1 and 2 on two crevo threads now, with not a single reply to defend.
Another thing to chew on is that the Torah defines the word "choshech" as both darkness and black energy. Now how did them guys know about dark matter all those moons ago? :-}
More chew:
Genesis predicted a beginning millenium ago. BBT caught up in the 20th Century. Amazing, eh?
But as yet, no one has stepped forward to defend Genesis in two crevo threads.
I'm waiting.
In the mean time, the answer is there for all those who will open their eyes that God created Evolution, which solves all the contradictions of science vs. Genesis in one swell foop.
I'm in the middle of changing a blower motor and plowing the hill. Busy night.
Evolution has been studied non-stop in the public school system and universities for nigh unto 50 plus years--where have you been? By comparison, there has been *no* study of creation, consequently little opportunity for "creationist to attack".
For later reading
"Atheism is a religion too. To say you know there is no God is logically the same as saying you know there is."
Essentially I agree, and have always thought this way myself.
"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."
On the issue of how life first sprung from non-life, the author's lack of imagination leads him into believing that this serves as evidence for intelligent design. For example, clay is an interesting substance. After having it's shape modified, it reforms to it's original shape. There are analogies to this on the macro-molecular scale.
On the second point, his argument smacks of reductionism. Let us stipulate that non-living chemicals cannot reproduce. Even so, how does this mean that cells can not reproduce, simply because it's constituent parts cannot?
You are a liar. This is what you said.
I don't have time for a point by point refutation or debate
Typical creationist. I point out serous flaws in Genesis, you avoid the debate, yet claim you didn't. Bringing up other subjects is not "stepping forward". It is avoiding the subject of the problems in Genesis.
"Surely you know that evolution is OPPOSED to several natural laws. Going from order to disorder is the nature of things. Evolution has it backwards."
The energy from the Sun is what allows things to go from disorder to order. This is the fatal flaw in your statement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.