[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Dear Border Czar: This Nonprofit Boasts A List Of 400 Companies That Employ Migrants

US Deficit Explodes: Blowout October Deficit Means 2nd Worst Start To US Fiscal Year On Record

Gaetz Resigns 'Effective Immediately' After Trump AG Pick; DC In Full Blown Panic

MAHA MEME

noone2222 and John Bolton sitting in a tree K I S S I N G

Donald Trump To Help Construct The Third Temple?

"The Elites Want To ROB Us of Our SOVEREIGNTY!" | Robert F Kennedy

Take Your Money OUT of THESE Banks NOW! - Jim Rickards

Trump Taps Tulsi Gabbard As Director Of National Intelligence

DC In Full Blown Panic After Trump Picks Matt Gaetz For Attorney General

Cleveland Clinic Warns Wave of Mass Deaths Will Wipe Out Covid-Vaxxed Within ‘5 Years’

Judah-ism is as Judah-ism does

Danger ahead: November 2024, Boston Dynamics introduces a fully autonomous "Atlas" robot. Robot humanoids are here.

Trump names [Fox News host] Pete Hegseth as his Defense secretary

Lefties losing it: Trump’s YMCA dance goes viral

Elon Musk: "15 Products You'll Stop Buying After You Know What They're Made Of"

Walmart And Other Major Retailers Canceling Billions In Orders Amid Fears Of A Dark Winter Ahead

Joe and Jill Biden deliver final 'kick' against Kamala Harris on election day

Relative importance of carbon dioxide and water in the greenhouse effect: Does the tail wag the dog?

Fired FEMA Employee Speaks Out, Says It Was Not Isolated Incident: Colossal Event Of Avoidance

Judge Merchan Hands Trump Historic Victory Donald Receives Stay on Felony Conviction

PNut the Squirrel was marked for death and decapitation from the start as rabies test results are negative

Yemeni forces strike military base in Tel Aviv with hypersonic ballistic missile

SheÂ’s lying. The FEC shows the payment

Speaker Johnson Orders Entire Biden Administration to Preserve and Retain All Records and Documents

Boeing has given up on diversity.

Trump Targeting up to 100,000 Deep Staters for Absolute Exile From DC

FBI Execs Rush to Retire After Trump Victory Leaves Them Shell-Shocked.

Witness to Tragedy: Huge Financial Incentives Led Hospitals to Use COVID Treatments That Killed Patients

‘Knucklehead’: Tim Walz returns to Minnesota ‘defeated'


Science/Tech
See other Science/Tech Articles

Title: 81 yr old atheist reverses position
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.harunyahya.com/articles/70scientific_world.html
Published: Dec 12, 2007
Author: n
Post Date: 2007-12-12 13:15:28 by gengis gandhi
Keywords: None
Views: 568
Comments: 52

The Scientific World Is Turning to God

HARUN YAHYA

"As people have certainly been influenced by me, I want to try and correct the enormous damage I may have done." (Anthony Flew)

The newspapers these days are echoing with these regret-filled words by Anthony Flew, in his time a well-known atheist philosopher. The 81-year-old British professor of philosophy Flew chose to become an atheist at the age of 15, and first made a name for himself in the academic field with a paper published in 1950. In the 54 years that followed, he defended atheism as a teacher at the universities of Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reading, at many American and Canadian universities he visited, in debates, books, lecture halls and articles. In recent days, however, Flew has announced that he has abandoned this error and accepts that the universe was created.

The decisive factor in this radical change of view is the clear and definitive evidence revealed by science on the subject of creation. Flew realised, in the face of the information-based complexity of life, that the true origin of life is intelligent design and that the atheism he had espoused for 66 years was a discredited philosophy.

Flew announced the scientific reasons underlying this change in belief in these terms:

"Biologists' investigation of DNA has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved." (1)

"It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism." (2)

"I have been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinarily complicated creature." (3)

The DNA research which Flew cites as a fundamental reason for his change of opinion has indeed revealed striking facts about creation. The helix shape of the DNA molecule, its possession of the genetic code, the nucleotide strings that refute blind chance, the storage of encyclopaedic quantities of information and many other striking findings have revealed that the structure and functions of this molecule were arranged for life with a special design. Comments by scientists concerned with DNA research bear witness to this fact.

Francis Crick, for instance, one of the scientists who revealed the helix shape of DNA admitted in the face of the findings regarding DNA that the origin of life indicated a miracle:

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. (4)

Based on his calculations, Led Adleman of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles has stated that one gram of DNA can store as much information as a trillion compact discs. (5) Gene Myers, a scientist employed on the Human Genome Project, has said the following in the face of the miraculous arrangements he witnessed:

"What really astounds me is the architecture of life… The system is extremely complex. It's like it was designed… There's a huge intelligence there." (6)

The most striking fact about DNA is that the existence of the coded genetic information can definitely not be explained in terms of matter and energy or natural laws. Dr. Werner Gitt, a professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, has said this on the subject:

A code system is always the result of a mental process… It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required… There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this. (7)

Creationist scientists and philosophers played a major role in Flew's acceptance of intelligent design, backed up by all these findings. In recent times Flew participated in debates with scientists and philosophers who were proponents of creation, and exchanged ideas with them. The final turning point in that process was a discussion organised by the Institute for Metascientific Research in Texas in May, 2003. Flew participated together with author Roy Abraham Varghese, Israeli physicist and molecular biologist Gerald Schroeder, and Roman Catholic philosopher John Haldane. Flew was impressed by the weight of the scientific evidence in favour of creation and by the convincing nature of his opponents' arguments, and abandoned atheism as an idea in the period following that discussion. In a letter he wrote for the August-September, 2003, edition of the British magazine Philosophy Now, he recommended Schroeder's book "The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth" and Varghese's book "The Wonderful World."(8) During an interview with the professor of philosophy and theology Gary R. Habermas, who also played a major role in his change of mind (9), and also on the video "Has Science Discovered God?," he openly stated that he believed in intelligent design.

The "Intelligence Pervading the Universe" and the Collapse of Atheism

In the face of all the scientific developments outlined above, the acceptance of intelligent design by Antony Flew, famous for defending atheism for many years, reflects a final scene in the process of collapse being undergone by atheism. Modern science has revealed the existence of an "intelligence pervading the universe," thus leaving atheism out of the equation.

In his book "The Hidden Face of God," Gerald Schroeder, one of the creationist scientists who influenced Flew, writes:

"A single consciousness, a universal wisdom, pervades the universe. The discoveries of science, those that search the quantum nature of subatomic matter, have moved us to the brink of a startling realization: all existence is the expression of this wisdom. In the laboratories we experience it as information that first physically articulated as energy and then condensed into the form of matter. Every particle, every being, from atom to human, appears to represent a level of information, of wisdom." (10)

Scientific research into both the functioning of the cell and the subatomic particles of matter has revealed this fact in an indisputable manner: Life and the universe were brought into being from nothing by the will of an entity possessed of a superior mind and wisdom. There is no doubt that the possessor of that knowledge and mind that pervade the universe at all levels is Almighty Allah. Allah reveals this truth in the Qur'an:

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 42.

#1. To: gengis gandhi (#0)

Scientific research into both the functioning of the cell and the subatomic particles of matter has revealed this fact in an indisputable manner: Life and the universe were brought into being from nothing by the will of an entity possessed of a superior mind and wisdom. There is no doubt that the possessor of that knowledge and mind that pervade the universe at all levels is Almighty Allah. Allah reveals this truth in the Qur'an:

Train gets going... builds up a huge head of steam.... starts racing along at 200 miles an hour.... and then goes soaring off the tracks and flying into space at the first curve. Wheee!

Do I think there is a "great intelligence" behind the creation of this universe? Yes. Do I believe this reality is a subset of a greater reality? Yes. Am I willing to subscribe to any particular dogma and/or say any one particular religion has "the truth" as compared to all the rest? Hell no!

Elliott Jackalope  posted on  2007-12-12   13:20:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Elliott Jackalope (#1)

yeah, this clown has to go and hack for islam.

archaic.

creationism seems far more philisophically likely than random evolution.

to me, the ultimate fundamentalists are the atheists.

as dogmatic as any religion.

gengis gandhi  posted on  2007-12-12   13:25:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: gengis gandhi (#2)

creationism seems far more philisophically likely than random evolution

Evolution isn't a random process. Anyone who has studied the subject at all understands this.

People who use words such as "accidental," "chance," and "random," when talking about life in the context of evolution have studied little or nothing about the subject. They've read or heard some one-liners and they think that means they're informed on the issue. to me, the ultimate fundamentalists are the atheists.

Atheism is a default position. Everyone is born an atheist and then they are indoctrinated by others who were, themselves, indoctrinated by others.

Alan Chapman  posted on  2007-12-12   14:13:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Alan Chapman, gengis gandhi, Indrid Cold, christine, FOH, innieway, TwentyTwelve, all (#6)

Evolution isn't a random process. Anyone who has studied the subject at all understands this.

People who use words such as "accidental," "chance," and "random," when talking about life in the context of evolution have studied little or nothing about the subject. They've read or heard some one-liners and they think that means they're informed on the issue. to me, the ultimate fundamentalists are the atheists.

Atheism is a default position. Everyone is born an atheist and then they are indoctrinated by others who were, themselves, indoctrinated by others.

I do so wish atheists were not addicted to logical fallacies and imputing postions to others which they do not hold, are unprovable, and assumed as factual by fiat.

First the Darwinist/Evolutionist/Atheist position, which is accepted on "faith in Almighty Darwin" and his omniscience, for the origin of life is one which is assumed by fiat and IS based upon an assumption that life originated by the chance combination of inanimate materials into a primordial animate form. What I call the "Shit Happens" Theory for the origin of life.

The theory of course revolves around that fact, and the scientific experiment which purported to prove it has been proven incorrect. Putting the "Shit Happens" Theorists into an uproar was the discovery by Historical Geologists that one of the elements of the Materialist Creation Theory (i.e., "Shit Happens") is false. That is that in the time frame positied the earth did not have an abundant Methane-Amonia Atmosphere, but that it was apparently dominated by Sulfur compounds, Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and other trace gases.

Further, as pointed out in the article indirectly, from this highly improbable beginning greater complexity evolves in direct contradiction to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This is not a trivial point. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, for those not familiar with it, states that the physical universe tends toward a zero energy state of complete chaos, no life, and no physical organization - this is referred to as "entropy". It is an accepted, and experimentally validated, theory of how the Physical Universe operates. So, the problem confronted, and always avoided, by the Darwinists/Evolutionists/Atheists is that the biological world demonstrates the exact opposite i.e., increasing complexity, higher levels of organization and function, and higher levels of operational capability. So, the Darwinist "Shit Happens" Theory and the Second Law of Thermodynamics are in conflict.

Axiom: When two datums are mutually exclusive then the first thing one can know is that one or both are false.

So, in order to explain the observed phenomena an element of causality must be introduced and it is one which perforce adds energy to the System and coordinates and brings about higher levels of function and complexity. That is the core operating datum for the Creation Theorists i.e., that causal element which brings about a greater order and more complex function. Not as misrepresented by the Darwinists that it is all "God". Creation theory taken objectively simply implies the existence of that causal element. What one names it and associated Religious Dogma in not relevant to the basic position and to assert such is false and is frequently intentionally false.

As for Atheism being a default position that is again a logical fallacy and is an unsupported assumption which is self-serving for the atheist position. The most that could be supported is that Religion, in its formal sense i.e., Worship and Philosophy, are learned but unbelief as a doctrine is equally a learned position, philosophy, and DOGMA. It is possible that one could construct an argument that a newborn infant holds neither position, but that is not a proposition I care to take on at the moment.

Original_Intent  posted on  2007-12-12   15:25:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: Original_Intent (#20)

I do so wish atheists were not addicted to logical fallacies and imputing postions to others which they do not hold, are unprovable, and assumed as factual by fiat.

What logical fallacies? The phrase "random evolution" was used. Evolutionary biologists don't think evolution is random.

First the Darwinist/Evolutionist/Atheist position, which is accepted on "faith in Almighty Darwin"...

Although often credited with it's discovery, Darwin didn't discover evolution. He came up with the idea of evolution by natural selection based upon his observations. Succinctly put, it means that the more successful an organism is at adaptation the more likely it is to survive and replicate. The notion that life evolved into increasingly complex forms over time is based on observable evidence. People seek refuge in faith when they just don't know any better.

...in the time frame positied the earth did not have an abundant Methane-Amonia Atmosphere, but that it was apparently dominated by Sulfur compounds, Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and other trace gases.

Microscopic organisms have been discovered living and thriving in extremely hostile environments on Earth, which would be lethal to many other species.

As for Atheism being a default position that is again a logical fallacy...

I'm beginning to think that you don't understand what a logical fallacy is.

...an unsupported assumption...unbelief as a doctrine is equally a learned position

A newborn is completely ignorant about his environment except what he discerns through his senses. Lacking belief isn't a learned position. Some choose to use reason to discover answers. Others choose to engage in wild speculation without evidence because the appealing prospects are comforting.

Alan Chapman  posted on  2007-12-12   18:30:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: Alan Chapman, gengis gandhi, Indrid Cold, christine, FOH, innieway, TwentyTwelve, all (#32)

Me: I do so wish atheists were not addicted to logical fallacies and imputing postions to others which they do not hold, are unprovable, and assumed as factual by fiat.

AC: What logical fallacies? The phrase "random evolution" was used. Evolutionary biologists don't think evolution is random.

Evasion and an attempt to divert from the point. (I could demand you support your contention but will leave it for other readers to simply note that you have made an unsupported assertion i.e., a generalization "Evolutionary biologists don' think ...".) My point was, and stands unrefuted, that the Darwinist/Evolutionist/Atheist mythology for the origin of life relies upon a random chance event creating life spontaneously. A more complete refutation would also point out that a mutation is by definition a random chance event and that the evolutionary mechanism relies upon mutatiom, a random chance event, for much of its macroevolutionary dogma.

This was counter to your assertion which evolutionary theory does not rely upon chance - which assertion you are now trying to obfuscate. The funadamental starting point of Darwinian/Materialiast/Atheist dogma is that the origin of life is to be found when some materialist mystical moment occurs where inanimate Methane and Ammonia, which is scientifically dubious given the geologic record, somehow combined in a tidal pool. Then by "deus ex machina" Mary Shelley hit it with a lightning bolt and like the “Modern Prometheus” life erupted from inanimate matter i.e., the "Shit Happens" Theory.

My point did not address evolutionary theory as a direct point, but rather attacked the premise upon which your assertion is founded and derives its logical basis. The premise is discredited. Any argument founded upon a false premise is itself false i.e., a logical fallacy.

(Note: For those not familiar with the terms there are really two distinct types of evolution:

1.Microevolution i.e., the adaptation and modification by environment of an plant or an animal to a niche in its habitat. This is often referred to as evolution by natural selection i.e., those that successfully adapt survive and those that don't – don't. The animal does not change from one type of animal to another but rather undergoes minor changes in form. Thus Darwin's Galapagos Finches are all still Finches, but have simply adapted via small changes in form to more effectively thrive in the niche they feed in. Creation Theory does not dispute the validity of microevolution.

2.Macroevolution i.e., the change of one form to another. This would be analogous to a plant developing mobility and becoming an animal or a Wolf evolving into a Sheep. In microevolution the animal remains the same type of animal but undergoes small modifications necessary to more successfully survive in a changing environment or to take on a new niche in the ecosphere. In macroevolution you have one form radically changing into something completely different.)

Me: First the Darwinist/Evolutionist/Atheist position, which is accepted on "faith in Almighty Darwin"...

AC: Although often credited with it's discovery, Darwin didn't discover evolution. He came up with the idea of evolution by natural selection based upon his observations. Succinctly put, it means that the more successful an organism is at adaptation the more likely it is to survive and replicate. The notion that life evolved into increasingly complex forms over time is based on observable evidence. People seek refuge in faith when they just don't know any better.

Again you engage in “logic chopping”. (Look up the term – it is not a compliment.) Evolution by adaptation i.e., natural selection is not under dispute and thus throwing that out as though the assertion proves something is a Red Herring . The point raised is the fundamental premise upon which your argument rests i.e., the origin of animate life. Without a life form to modify evolution is a moot point. Further macroevolution, while observable, has no proven mechanism, other than causal intelligent intervention from whatever source. The fossil record does not support it in the Darwinistic sense of small changes over time – there are no intermediate transitional forms in the fossil record which were predicted by the Darwinist Model. Not even one.

As well you did not address the observation that evolution, as posited by the Materialist Camp, runs contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. For a system to move to a higher energy state, i.e., greater complexity and organization, requires an energy input into the system. The Darwinist model provides no mechanism to explain this and thus is deficient as a theory upon that point.

Me: ...in the time frame posit ed the earth did not have an abundant Methane-Amonia Atmosphere, but that it was apparently dominated by Sulfur compounds, Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and other trace gases.

AC: Microscopic organisms have been discovered living and thriving in extremely hostile environments on Earth, which would be lethal to many other species.

How nice. That does not address how those organisms came to be i.e., from what sprung the primordial first microbe. Thus this is again a logicial fallacy i.e., a Red Herring .

Me: As for Atheism being a default position that is again a logical fallacy...

I'm beginning to think that you don't understand what a logical fallacy is.

...an unsupported assumption...unbelief as a doctrine is equally a learned position

A newborn is completely ignorant about his environment except what he discerns through his senses. Lacking belief isn't a learned position. Some choose to use reason to discover answers. Others choose to engage in wild speculation without evidence because the appealing prospects are comforting.

The position of a newborn is that of unknowing. It is not a position of advocacy for or against a proposition. Atheism is not the lack of belief but the negation of belief.

Symbolically if one were to posit:

P = There is a deity.

Then the atheist position is not the lack of any defined belief but rather ~P (for those not familiar with symbolic logic the “~” symbol means “the negation of” or “not”. Thus ~P = NOT P.)

Thus ~P = There is no deity.

Thus anyone following this can then see the truth of the statement that atheism is not the absence of belief but as it is practiced the opposite of belief or formally the negation of belief.

Returning to our newborn we can then see that a baby with no defined belief system is neither a theist nor an atheist as, as far as we can tell, it has no belief one way or the other, and does not even have the thought symbols for either position. Thus both theism (a belief in a divine being) and atheism (a rejection of the belief in a divine being) are both positive positions in that they both advocate a specific point of view. Thus our unknowing child holds neither belief, and thus the assertion that the natural native position of a newborn is atheism is false.

This can be expressed as neither P or ~P or symbolically ("v" = or) ~(P v ~P) which is not equivalent to ~P.

Q.E.D.

Original_Intent  posted on  2007-12-13   15:25:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 42.

#43. To: Original_Intent (#42)

Great post. Thanks for the ping.

TwentyTwelve  posted on  2007-12-13 15:31:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: Original_Intent (#42)

My point was, and stands unrefuted, that the Darwinist/Evolutionist/Atheist mythology for the origin of life relies upon a random chance event creating life spontaneously.

as is this origin of the theory, the big bang.

came from somewhere, somehow, just because.

the causeless cause.

gengis gandhi  posted on  2007-12-13 15:42:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: Alan Chapman, gengis gandhi, Indrid Cold, christine, FOH, innieway, TwentyTwelve, all (#42)

***** Them Crickets is back. *****

Original_Intent  posted on  2007-12-14 13:10:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 42.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]