Weighing the Evidence: An Atheist Abandons Atheism

BreakPoint with Charles Colson ^ | January 10, 2005 | Charles Colson

[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.

[xm177e2]

Sorry to disappoint, but he's still an atheist

Which means all of the witty observations (like "old atheists get religion chuckle chuckle") are crap.

[qam1]

A real transitional species would be a fish with part of a new orgram that will not be useful for another 500 million years, like a fish with the stub of a leg sticking out of it that will be a real leg in 10 million years.

Or a species with part of a sex organ that will be a sex organ in 50 million years.

There should be many species with Frankenstein like, not yet usable characteristics that are future legs, eyes, sex organs and not the bird with some bone that looks similar to a flying dinosaur bone.

You really don't understand evolution, Do you

But this might quailify

After all, we cannot turn from a fish into a horse in one generation. It takes millions of years. How long did it take for a seahorse to become a horse?

Please tell me you are joking

[narby]

Going from order to disorder is the nature of things.

As the order of water vapor goes to the disorder of six sided snowflakes. No, wait.... computing.....

You'd best leave the science to the scientists, and let the quacks selling videos and books on ID go their own way. This has been debunked so many times it's silly.

[Dimensio]

Evolution has been studied non-stop in the public school system and universities for nigh unto 50 plus years--where have you been?

I've been reading forums where people claim that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, that evolution predicts that dogs will give birth to cats, that evolution makes claims as to the ultimate origin of life or even the ultimate origin of the universe, that there are no transitional fossils, that evolution says that there is no "God", that evolution was created specifically to discredit Christianity and a hell of a lot more that just is not true.

If evolution is being "studied non-stop in the public school system", then a lot of people aren't paying attention.

By comparison, there has been *no* study of creation,

What is this "creation" of which you speak, and why should it be studied?

[sigarms]

Did you really intend to direct your statement toward me?

[Dimensio]

I don't refer to any particular God. If you'll think about what I posted, you'll understand the difference between "lacking belief" and "knowing there is no God".

I am an atheist, but I know better than to claim that there "is no God", especially when this "God" is not even defined in any meaningful way. It is meaningless to either assert or deny the existence of a concept that hasn't been defined.

[Dimensio]

He doesn't seem to know much at all about biology (or natural sciences in general), but that doesn't stop him from proclaiming himself expert enough to "know" that evolution is clearly false.

[sigarms]

"I am an atheist, but I know better than to claim that there is no God"


Then you are not an atheist.

The definition of atheism is that you affirmatively believe in the absence of any God--regardless of definition.

[Dimensio]

No, the definition of atheism is the abscence of theism. A = without, theism = belief in a god or gods. Atheism = without belief in a god or gods. I do not believe in any deities, therefore I am an atheist.

[sigarms]

"No, the definition of atheism is the abscence of theism. A = without, theism = belief in a god or gods. Atheism = without belief in a god or gods. I do not believe in any deities, therefore I am an atheist."

If you were to literally translate from Latin, you would be correct.

But the meaning of the word 'atheism' is not equivalent to the literal Latin translation.

You may want to learn about this before you proclaim yourself as an atheist.

If you are "without belief in a god or gods", then a more fitting term would be agnostic. That is, "without knowing". Meaning that you do not commit yourself to the affirmative belief in the existence or the non-existence of a god or gods.

[microgood]

Thanks for the great pictures.

You really don't understand evolution, Do you

Yes I do, maybe not at the molecular level. I know the changes are gradual over millions of years and one small change in a gene can change massive characteristics in the living creature and that mutation and natural selection and adaptation occurs.

Its just I would feel better about the theory if I knew where the first life came from. You guys start with life already there, the genome in place, and then start your theorizing, without regard to the notion that the origin of the genome might affect the theory. Ignoring that huge missing piece makes the science after that highly speculative.

That is why I see no difference in believing that a billion genomes simultaneously occurred rather than one did. Since we do not know where it came from we do not know if there was one or many.

I think man is still quite a ways away from understanding life at the genetic level and should stick to that rather than the speciation thing. I think teaching speciation is as big a waste of time as many think ID is in that it cannot really be explained except in a very general way. I also believe scientists today think they know more than they actually do. But I admint that is due to my mistrust of the 60s generation and is anecdotal in nature.

Please tell me you are joking

Ok, I was exaggerating a bit.

[Dimensio]

If you get to tell me what it is to be an atheist, do I get to tell Christians what it is to be a Christian?

If you are "without belief in a god or gods", then a more fitting term would be agnostic.

No, I'm not agnostic. I believe that if a god exists, it is possible to know that this god exists -- depending on the nature of said deity. An agnostic believes that it is impossible to know whether or not a god exists.

[shubi]

I forgive you for supporting a silly cult.

[shubi]

Come on sig! Don't you know that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is the only half way scientific argument the creationists have? ;-)

[shubi]

"there has been *no* study of creation,"

There has been no study of creationism, because it is misinterpretation of the Bible, not science.

There has been study of the Big Bang hypothesis (which is not in the Theory of Evolution)

[shubi]

"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."

That is what I believe (indirectly from let there be light), but the creationists imply that I am going to H E double hockey sticks. LOL

[shubi]

"Its just I would feel better about the theory if I knew where the first life came from."

I hope the fact that the Theory of Evolution does not include creation of first life comforts you.

[shubi]

An agnostic doesn't know whether a god exists. An atheist prays that God doesn't exist. ;-)

[muir_redwoods]

Regarding G-d, there is no evidence, only faith and conjecture. On this earth, that is all anyone has regarding the question of G-d.

[shubi]

Most of these bitter replies from creationists are based on plagarism from creationist crap sites.