Poor old Antony Flew. Dan S de Merengue has dragged him into the discussion, yet again.

>>As famous philosopher Antony flew recently noted, “The findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”<<

Probably the saddest aspect of thrusting this venerable gentleman into the spotlight is the extent to which he hates it. Second to this discomfort is the manner in which his pronouncements are pounced upon by theists, as if this is all the proof required to make their flimsy case for them.

As Dan S de Merengue knows very well, the full story of Professor Flew's recent musings do not, according to the man himself, line up very well with the sort of religion to which, say, the Dan S de Merengues of this world ascribe.

Here's an excerpt from an open letter to the great man, published in the Autumn 2005 issue of "The Open Society" - a fairly mainstream religious pamphlet, I'm sure you agree.

"You say that you have abandoned atheism for belief in God. But the God of which religion? Pantheism? Deism? Or of some non-Mosaic version of theism? You seem to have endorsed all three of them, notwithstanding that belief in any one is logically inconsistent with belief in any of the others, and that both Pantheism and Deism are inconsistent with the alleged ‘evidence’ you count on to support them."

http://www.nzarh.org.nz/journal/2005v78n1aut.pdf

Unfortunately, Flew's age and dislike of public stoushes have so far prevented him from providing a better explanation of his sudden refutation of his previous work.

Which is a pity. Because while to change one's mind is not an offence - in fact, it is an act of considerable intellectual courage for a man of Professor Flew's scholarship - the lack of rigour with which he appears to have approached the issue is at considerable odds with his customary attention to detail.

In the meantime, it is a fairly fragile hook upon which to hang an intelligent design story.

DSM,

Evolution is not above scrutiny, in fact it is probably the most thoroughly scrutinised theory ever. The fact that there is as yet nothing that contradicts the theory, or any plausible alternative is why it continues to stand.

the only "proof" that creationists can find for their own theory, is to:

- Point feebly at the ever shrinking gaps in the fossil records and bleat that the theory is not completely proven. (UOG)

- Look at the complexity of life and claim that because they can't understand it that God (or some other intelligent designer) must be needed to design it.

"Creationism" the alternative to reason.

shadlow minester<<the only "proof" that creationists can find for their own theory,is to:>>>//my brr-other of the shadows..evolution is your theory..[NOT MINE]...it is for you..to supply the proof for YOUR theory

it is you lot who<<Point feebly>>at evolutions of the SPECIES and say this is how one genus mutates into another genus

IT IS YOU that point...<<at the ever shrinking gaps in the fossil records>>>..well my shadow/brrr-other..point and bleat that the theory is completely proven...MATE..your just not revealing your proof...IF YOU HAVE PROOF PRESENT IT

<<Look at the complexity of life>>>NAME THE FIRST LIFE

evolve that first life into another genus[name one evolution that evolved from bacteria into not bacteria[or from single cell into multiple cell..[or cold blood into warm blood...NAME ONE..proven genus change

if science replicate the science[talk is cheap my brother [your faith in science is the same as my faith in god[give me that i have reasons for my belief..[reveal your reasons for BELIEF in science..[REVEAL THE SCIENCE FACTS[you cant because ommoung all the facts there is not one proof..[just facts that prove nothing

why didnt darwin write evolution of genus[because he presented proof of evolution in species..[one dont prove the other]...you can ONLY present proofs of species evolution because proofs for genus evolution are full of huge GAPS

[as witnessed by the fossil record..[and not a single reported]..NOT A SINGLE REPORTED CHANGE OF GENUS ...EVER..present one mate

ONE evolution of one genus into a NEW GENUS
present your science[you have a theory]..nothing more

<<God (or some other intelligent designer) must be needed to design it.>>>mate make but one like it...science has never made life..nor evolved a single life..into any other genus...EVER...cannot even make a living cell membrane..[let alone a life..let alone evolved the life

[evolution/THEORY is all fraud..[fraud to support a godless theory..fraud to give aid and comfort to retards..needing to not believe..in the living loving god

"One example of natural speciation is the diversity of the three-spined stickleback, a marine fish which, after the last ice age, has undergone speciation into new freshwater colonies in isolated lakes and streams. Over an estimated 10,000 generations, the sticklebacks show structural differences that are *greater than those seen between different genera of fish* including variations in fins, changes in the number or size of their bony plates, variable jaw structure, and color differences." Wikipedia, speciation.
<<God (or some other intelligent designer) must be needed to design it.>>
If Life requires a God to create it, what is required to create a God?

Grim,
What is required to create a God? God does not require anything. He is uncreated.

I notice that after 10000 generations, what were stickleback fish are still stickleback fish, but are now showing a diversity of variation. The issue is not to what genus they’re classified, as our invented classification systems are fairly arbitrary. The issue is whether the noted changes in colour, jaw size, etc. are the types of upward changes that, given enough time, could add to the genome sufficient information to adapt a fish into a philosopher.

Bushbasher,
You say I can’t point to a creationist paper in established biological journals. Are you pleased about this? Let’s look at one real life example.

Stephen Meyer’s paper on the origin of the basic types in the Cambrian explosion passed peer review and was printed in a journal associated with the Smithsonian. However, because he made a suggestion of intelligent design in the conclusion (and he is well known as an ID proponent) evolutionists protested so vigorously that the BSW promised that ID would not addressed in future issues of its journal. In the fallout the journal’s editor, Richard Stromberg lost his job at the Smithsonian; such is the climate for ‘open minded academic freedom’ surrounding this issue.

Evolutionists cannot demand that proponents of an intelligent designer publish in their favoured journals, and then prevent them from doing so.

Is it not science because it is not published, or it is not published because it is not science? Where does the circle begin?

I asked if evolution was above scrutiny. I’m told that it is continually scrutinised by ‘evolutionary’ biologists. But can we ever investigate the evidence from outside of the neo-darwinian framework? And if so, how does the evidence compare? Is there another explanation that is more plausible?

I mention the opinion of philosopher Antony Flew, though Bugsy doubts that he knows much more about genetics than DS Merengue.

Pericles, I don’t mention him because I think he believes the same as me on every issue (who would?). I highlight his viewpoint as one of an increasing number of scholars able to see the design inference within nature.

I don’t hang an entire theory on his words. Others who view the same evidence make similar statements. Francis Crick (who did know something about genetics) said in 1981,

“What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events… An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going … Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts.”

It seems the more we understand of genetics over time, the more difficult it is to find a plausible naturalistic account for an origin of life.

Bugsy, http://creation.com/rate-group-reveals-exciting-breakthroughs