Prof. Anthony Flew on Radio 4

[Oleron]

I thought I'd mention that Radio 4 had a news item on the current ID controversy in Pennsylvania this morning.

As a commentator on events they interviewed Prof Anthony Flew, the famous atheist and emeritus Prof of Philosophy, who recently started believing in god.

He made several comments which I thought were interesting:
1. Evolution is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence.
2. This doesn't rule out intelligent design.
3. Darwin himself, in his Origin of Species, supports the idea of a god to get the whole thing started in the first place.
4. He explained that his 'god' was something that had no interest in human affairs.
5. He denied his change of mind was due to him getting old.
6. He didn't really address the issue of teaching ID in schools directly, although he wasn't really asked directly (from what I remember).

My comments on his comments:
1. True.
2. I would argue that evolution actually DEPENDS on there being no driving intelligence.
3. Darwin was afraid of the church's reaction to his book. In a different circumstance I believe he may have just done away with god altogether- pure speculation on my part.
4. This is interesting. Why would a god with no interest in human affairs bother to create intelligent life?
5. He sounded REALLY old! But I'll buy it.
6. ID in Pennsylvanian schools is not a problem, as long as it is taught in Religious education not science class.

Overall I thought he was making the mistake of 'argument from incredulity' that makes so many people resort to ID.

 

[Matabiri]

A brief discussion this morning (listen again here) about the ID is schools thing, with Steve Jones being pleasently vehement about IDers being "kooks".

 

[pgwenthold]

I thought I'd mention that Radio 4 had a news item on the current ID controversy in Pennsylvania this morning.

As a commentator on events they interviewed Prof Anthony Flew, the famous atheist and emeritus Prof of Philosophy, who recently started believing in god.

He made several comments which I thought were interesting:
1. Evolution is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence.
2. This doesn't rule out intelligent design.

Of course not. Nothing CAN rule out intelligent design.

How do you know that when something falls by what we call gravity, it isn't being guided by the hand of God?

That's why ID isn't scientific. It explains nothing.

 

[Oleron]

I agree PG.

The latest tactic of the ID crowd is to deny that their point of view is anything to do with creationism. They maintain that they are not xian-centric but are equally open to the ID beliefs of other philosophies/religions. It is just coincidence that the push for ID in schools is coming from the xian fundies.

This is simply an attempt to distance themselves from the criticism that they rely too heavily on the likes of Kent Hovind for their arguments.

I believe that this represents the thin end of the wedge. They are trying to shoehorn god into the gaps in our scientific knowledge.

Science does not have all the answers but this is no reason for the spurious injection of unfounded religious speculation into our science classrooms.

 

[Beady]

4. This is interesting. Why would a god with no interest in human affairs bother to create intelligent life?

As I say in another thread, there are several possible reasons, including personal satisfaction, whimsy, amusement, and "Because it's there." Given that we're talking about a being whose intellect is, by definition, unimaginibly far apart from ours, I would expect that any true motive would be completely beyond our comprehension. Nevertheless, as I've shown, there are several possibilities even within our understanding.

BTW, I'm an agnostic, leaning toward atheism. My point isn't necessarilly to take issue, but to point out that assigning a (lack of) motive neither proves nor suggests anything at all, other than our own lack of information or comprehension.

To shift context a little, I've worked as an orderly in a couple of psychiatric wards. The patients did things which seemed to lack a reason, from my viewpoint, yet within their own framework they had clear motive and logic (as far as they were able to exercise logic). Just because their motives and actions made no sense to me, didn't mean that, to them, their motives and actions were senseless.

 

[pgwenthold]

I agree PG.

The latest tactic of the ID crowd is to deny that their point of view is anything to do with creationism. They maintain that they are not xian-centric but are equally open to the ID beliefs of other philosophies/religions.

Which is why it is important to counter it from a scientific point of view as opposed to religious.

Show that it doesn't matter what the Intelligent Designer is, the concept itself is unscientific because it is non-falsifiable. What observation could rule out an intelligent designer? None, of course. It's the same old question: how do you distinguish God from a poweful deceiver? An intelligent designer powerful enoug to create a universe could easily create one that looks like it wasn't designed.