Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Latest on Antony Flew!??

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    ... The article provides the following as the most recent update regarding Antony Flew: # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # (excerpts from article) Update
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 6, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      > http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369

      The article provides the following as the most recent update
      regarding Antony Flew:

      # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

      (excerpts from article)

      Update (January 2005)

      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 360
      (6399): pp. 25-26, 5 November 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.

      Despite all this, Flew has not retracted his belief in God, as far as
      I can tell. But in response to theists citing him in their favor,
      Flew strangely calls his "recent very modest defection from my
      previous unbelief" a "more radical form of unbelief," and implies
      that the concept of God might actually be self-refuting, for "surely
      there is material here for a new and more fundamental challenge to
      the very conception of God as an omnipotent spirit," but, Flew
      says, "I am just too old at the age of nearly 82 to initiate and
      conduct a major and super radical controversy about the
      conceivability of the putative concept of God as a spirit."

      This would appear to be his excuse for everything: he won't
      investigate the evidence because it's too hard. Yet he will declare
      beliefs in the absence of proper inquiry.

      Theists would do well to drop the example of Flew. Because his
      willfully sloppy scholarship can only help to make belief look
      ridiculous.

      # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

      I would tend to agree that it looks like theists would do well not to
      make much over the Flew situation.

      Similarly, I think the good brethren would do well not to promote Dr.
      Bert as some leading light in the "creation-science" movement. Dr.
      Bert's blunders are not unlike the way Flew's blunders have been
      portrayed above.

      And we are still waiting for Dr. Bert to give us the details as to
      where he came up with his Maury statue claim (and a few other things).

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty
    • cassondrawrites@aol.com
      Another great example of independent thinking?! ;o) Cassondra [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Message 2 of 3 , Jan 6, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Another great example of "independent" thinking?! ;o)

        Cassondra


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.