Geoff Arnold

Please dont be so smart mouthed when our brillant scientist's can not provide a better explaination of heat then the flowed kinetic theory (the flaw is its inability to predict the actions of most gases). My point is his approached needs not involve sceince as we know it because he is one who is working to discover nature from the first how's and first causes of everything. This realm is very well negleted, but has so many promises akin to the application of mathmatical theory to life.

I'm sorry you think I'm being "smart mouthed". The point I was trying to make is that Flew himself has said that the issue is an empirical one, rather than being amenable to philosophizing. It's unfortunate, then, that he seems to be listening to crackpot pseudo-science rather than the best experts available. And yes, of course all of our scientific theories are provisional, approximate, and subject to revision, but our best theories (including theories of heat) WORK; they allow us to make testable predictions. And until we have better theories that allow us to make better predictions, it makes sense to go with what we have. After all, the science that you seem skeptical of is what created the computer that you're using to read this. If science is good enough to let us design silicon chips to build computers, why not use it elsewhere?

Have a good holiday,

Geoff

I just read you comments about Flew, the most respected Athiest of modern times.For a man like Flew to come to a belief in a higher power,well this is nothing short of a miricle.
My thoughts of what you wrote are as follows.I know as a Fact that if you studied the Bible and scientific evidence without bias you would come to this realization yourself.There must be a reason you dont believe in God besides science and the like.
Most great thinkers who are atheist,have put themselves in the place of God.To me,you have faith in nothing and I have faith in somthing,which is much more rational to me.To believe in Chance or Evolution and make them more than a theory is quite absurd.
These ideas especially Darwinin evolution are truly pathetic in the new scientific mind.While I have nothing against you being an athiest,I was one myself.... I think if you gave a deep hard look into what you put your faith in you might have a change of heart like Mr. Flew.
Thank God for scientist that are open minded enough to give intellegent design its proper place as a theory in the world of science today.I salute Mr Schroders courage and fantastic writing skills and I hope he shakes the very foundations of atheistic thought.

former atheist ,now spiritual,and happy to have a relationship with the creator...

Clint

Atheism is nothing more than Philosophy.Atheist pride themselves as the Great Scientific Minds and the only rational mind.With this said I will begin my argument.

Rarely do philosophers embrace pure nihilism,opting instead for a intermediate position.But as they look for positions somewhere between theism and nihilism,they always borrow capital from one or the other.Take for example the secular humanist.The secular Humanist somwhat niavely wants us to deny the existence of God,presume our beginnings to be the result of choatic chance.this renders our origins and very lives meaningless.Yet they call us to fight for human rights and dignity.If ever there was a striving after the wind this is it.Secular humanism as well as athiesm rests on pure sentimentality;it merly feel good to protect human rights and dignity.But all such persons are intellectual cowards.They cant stomach the idea of where there athiesm leads them...to full blown Nihilism.
Tell me why does human dignity matter if we are all cosmic accidents? the very source of human dignity comes from the Creator...Chew on that!!!

It's interesting, and a bit depressing, that these blog entries on "l'affaire Flew" should attract this kind of comment. Just for the record, I'm familiar with all of the respectable arguments pro and con the existence of god(s), ID versus naturalistic abiogenesis, naturalistic vs. divine ethics, and so forth. It's naive of the posters here to imagine that their ill-structured rants offer anything novel. They would spend their time better in reading, learning, and thinking about this stuff instead of posting such tired old arguments.

However, I won't delete the comments: they actually provide good evidence for the quality of critical thinking in this area.

SEE you prove my point.The only Great minds are those who believe in nothing and everyone else,who might I add have studied for many years as well.
I would love to have logical debate with you but it is highly offensive when you say That those of us who trust in a God and view things in a different way are naive and ill-structured.
I think your entry is a bit obtuse...

Since my argument is old and not novel I will let you argue with Mr Dembski.Here is what he says though I am sure you will say he is naive as well.

Naturalism is the intellectual pathology of our age.It artifically constricts the life of the mind and shuts down inquiry into the transcendent.All the nineteenth century doctors of modernity were infected with it,Notably,Darwin,Marx,Freud and Nietzche.The fundimental tenet of naturalism in the west is the sufficiency of undirected natural causes to account for all of reality.The only way natrualism can be false is if reality is a much richer place then naturalism allows.
Naturalism is a disease.Intelligent Design is the cure.Intellegent design is a two pronged approach for eradicating Naturalism.On the one hand,intelligent design presents a scientific and philosophical critique of natrualism.Here the scientific critquie identifies the empirical inadequacies of natrulistic evolutionary theories,both cosmic and biolgical,wheras the philosophical critique demonstrates how natrualism is a metaphysical ideology with no imperical backing.The other prong of intelligent design is a positive scientific research program.As a positive research program,inteligent design is the scientific disapline that systematically investigates the effects of intelligent causes.

Malcolm Muggeridge wrote,"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution,Especially the extent to which its been applied,will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future.(Evolution is a flimsy and dubious hypothesis and lacks very little credulity at all".)Last sentence from my thoughts!