How do you explain the growing number of well-known, well-educated scientists who have cited SCIENTIFIC evidence for their change of hear and acceptance of a creator/intelligent design. This example is probably old news to many of you but in the linked article Prof. Antony Flew, a british philospher and as this article points out "considered the world's most famous atheist" does a 180 and cites unfolding SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for his change of heart.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC-News&id=2360
Your serious thoughts please.
2007-01-09 06:02:15 · 8 answers · asked by Q&A Queen 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Thank you all for your thoughtful response.
Anyway, I agree about the membership in the Discovery Institute. But here's an honest question cuz I simply don't know: Are they, the member scientists, required to renounce their belief in non-belief or whatever OR do they join after they have done so?
2007-01-09 12:24:35 · update #1
Blue? Fair enough observation. There have been others I just didn't have a chance to dig any further. Now I am by no means saying they are like leaving in droves obviously this Discovery Institute has more than one member or it wouldn't exactly be an institute, now would it?
2007-01-09 12:28:26 · update #2
Freebird? About your second paragraph? Now wouldn't that go against the very nature of a scientist? Isn't their very nature to study and observe before coming to rather than JUMPING to conclusions?
2007-01-09 12:30:46 · update #3
It doesn't take much research to discover the agenda of the so-called Discovery Institute. It's a front for the religious right intent on making Intelligent Design appear respectable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
While Professor Flew is an honored member of the British Humanist Association and author of several excellent books presenting the case for atheism, I'd hardly call him the world's most famous atheist. In any case, his personal beliefs regarding God seem to be in a state of flux. He has indicated that he no longer considers himself an atheist, but rather a Jeffersonian deist, yet he specifically retracted his statement in favor of Intelligent Design, which I assume is the one your article references.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Flew
2007-01-09 06:20:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wow. A "Philosopher" now believes in intelligent design. Not a huge leap in my opinion.
This person reminds me of the UFO enthusiasts. Something unexplainable occurs in their observation, but instead of concluding any of the reasonable explanations, they jump immediately to the most absurd - that they are extra-terrestrial in origin.
The same with the intelligent design crowd (especially the ones who sell books!). A small point of unexplained fact among overwhelming evidence of evolution, and they immediately jump to intelligent design instead of simply concluding that it's a normal event that is simply not yet explained. I bet this "converted" author will have exceptional sales among the ID crowd.
And personally, I never heard of this "world's most famous atheist". And I read alot.
And as far as scientists that accept intelligent design as a theory, better check credentials. Most in the related fields of study do not, and the few of those in the field of study that do are funded by faith-based groups, or are writing text books that promote ID, and are therefore biased by influences other than fact (just like your cited "philosopher/author").
2007-01-09 06:34:05 · answer #2 · answered by freebird 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Look at the credentials of the well-known, well-educated scientists. Most are members of an organization which REQUIRES they dismiss any evidence, if the evidence contradicts this organizations view of what the bible says. This is not the mark of a scientist. Most are making statements that are not in their field of expertise.
The article is propaganda, pure and simple.
2007-01-09 06:10:38 · answer #3 · answered by Radagast97 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, as for that particular scientist - people change their minds about religion all the time, both pro and con. It in and of itself isn't proof of anything. Science isn't decided by opinion, and the two quotes attributed to him said "What I think..." and "look to me." This is not evidence, it is speculation. What he thinks something looks like doesn't matter if it isn't provable, at least not in the world of science.
Also, you mention a growing number of scientists. This article lists exactly one...and he's a philosopher, not a biologist. How very interesting indeed.
2007-01-09 06:13:08 · answer #4 · answered by N 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Seeing as how Flew is a philosopher and not a biologist, I'm not so sure he's a great example of scientific atheism converting to religion. It would be better if most scientists (instead of one philosopher) admitted that there is a God, based on a scientific theory of God rather than non-falsifiable concepts like irreducible complexity. As soon as that is accomplished, I'll admit my transgression.
2007-01-09 06:14:57 · answer #5 · answered by Psyleet 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
particular purely spoil out that prayer rug that Imam Obama has issued each and all the best little libRETARDS. Get down on your knees and face mecca. Then pray to allah on your messiah Imam Obama to "exchange" united states of america of america.
2016-10-06 21:47:24 · answer #6 · answered by spies 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately, even scientists are prone to senility and other bizarre behavior in old age.
2007-01-09 06:24:38 · answer #7 · answered by Chris J 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it's propaganda and really proves nothing. Maybe Tony had a nervous break down.
2007-01-09 06:07:25 · answer #8 · answered by mutterhalls 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋