betsy

Excerpts from.... Charles Darwin and Asa Gray Discuss Teleology and Design Sara Joan Miles* Eastern College From: PSCF 53 (September 2001): 196-201. If Thomas Huxley earned the title of "Darwin's bulldog," then Asa Gray should be remembered as "Darwin's dove." Whereas Huxley enjoyed a good fight in his defense of Darwin's theory, Gray sought to mediate and bring sides together around a common understanding of "good science." As Darwin's strongest and most vocal scientific ally in the United States, Gray recognized the scientific importance of Darwin's efforts for the growing professionalism of biological researchers. But as an orthodox Christian, a Presbyterian firmly devoted to the faith expressed in the Nicene Creed, he saw in Darwin's theory both evidence for his philosophical commitment to natural theology and support for his opposition to the idealism advocated by Louis Agassiz and the naturphilosophers in both Europe and America. Indeed, Agassiz's advocacy of Platonic forms as a basis of biological understanding (e.g., "A species is a thought of the creator"1 would be a major source of American opposition to Darwin's theory. Professor of botany at Harvard during most of the middle half of the nineteenth century, Gray was one of the few members of the scientific community to whom Darwin revealed his theory before the publication of On the Origin of Species, and, from what I can tell, the only American. Gray and Darwin met briefly in January 1839 during one of Gray's visits to England. Later, during the 1850s, Darwin wrote Gray on several occasions requesting information--a practice that Darwin frequently employed. In 1854, Darwin's friend and confidant, Joseph Hooker, showed Darwin Gray's review of Hooker's Flora of New Zealand, in which Gray had argued strongly against Louis Agassiz's idealism and had raised questions from his own work on the stability of species. Gray was not yet ready to deny their permanence, but hybrids and other observations were beginning to trouble him. Darwin, however, saw in both Gray's review of Hooker's book and in his comments on De Candolle's tome that Gray was troubled by some of the same empirical data that had been bothering him. In April 1855, Darwin wrote Gray to urge that Gray update his Manual of the Botany of the Northern United States first published in 1848, and especially to address the issue of the range of Alpine plants in the United States. Specifically, he said: "Now I would say it is your duty to generalise as far as you safely can from your as yet completed work."3 Behind this request was Darwin's desire to test his impression that Gray could make a good ally. Gray passed the test, and finally, in July 1857, Darwin let Gray in on his theory of the transmutation of species. Gray was never an uncritical supporter, and there are many evidences in the correspondence between these two scientists that Gray was willing to challenge Darwin and disagree with some of his conclusions. Nevertheless, Gray saw the importance of Darwin's work and the ways in which it provided answers to the troublesome issues that he had confronted in his own botanical efforts. As all good historians of science and of Christian thought know, evangelical Christians in the nineteenth century were generally not biblical literalists, nor did they believe in a young earth. In other words, the religious opposition to Darwin did not arise from perceived problems between Darwin's theory and a literal reading of Genesis. Rather, following the publication of Origin of Species, it centered on what seemed to be the randomness of natural selection, the appearance of new organisms by chance, and therefore the exclusion of divine purpose or design in Nature.7 It was the teleological question that Gray addressed in his review and about which he and Darwin corresponded over many years. Darwin's response to Gray's review, a copy of which he received prior to its publication, was very positive. Darwin even hoped that it could become a preface in a second American edition of On the Origin of Species on which Gray worked. In a letter later in the year to James Dwight Dana, Darwin said: "No one person understands my views & has defended them so well as A. Gray;--though he does not by any means go all the way with me."8 The "all the way" included teleology, and Darwin wrote this to Gray concerning his attempt to retain design: “It has always seemed to me that for an Omnipotent & Omniscient Creator to foresee is the same as to preordain; but then when I come to think over this I get into an uncomfortable puzzle something analogous with "necessity & Free-will" or the "Origin of evil," or other subject quite beyond the scope of the human intellect”.9 Three months later he picked up the discussion with these comments: With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.--I am bewildered.--I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I shd wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other hand I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe & especially the nature of man, & to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me .... But the more I think the more bewildered I become; as indeed I have probably shown by this letter.10 Shortly after this letter to Gray, Darwin wrote Charles Lyell on the same subject and said: I have said that nat. Selection is to the structure of organised beings, what the human architect is to a building. The very existence of the human architect shows the existence of more general laws; but no one in giving credit for a building to the human architect, thinks it necessary to refer to the laws by which man has appeared. No astronomer in showing how movements of Planets are due to gravity, thinks it necessary to say that the law of gravity was designed that the planets shd pursue the courses which they pursue.--I cannot believe that there is a bit more interference by the Creator in the construction of each species, than in the course of the planets.--It is only owing to Paley & Co, as I believe, that this more special interference is thought necessary with living bodies.11 In mentioning "Paley & Co," Darwin was referring to William Paley and other natural theologians, who had argued that nature--through the organization and adaptations of living organisms--demonstrated the existence of an intelligent creator. Darwin had studied Paley while in university, and Gray had also been influenced by the work of Paley, whose eighteenth-century opus Natural Theology was an important component of nineteenth-century American philosophy and was still used as a text at Harvard when Gray began teaching there in 1842. For Paley, Nature provided the evidence for the existence of God, but Darwin had difficulty with this argument. His difficulty centered on what might best be referred to as issues surrounding theodicy, i.e., are natural selection and its results consistent with design by a benevolent God or do they imply that, if designed, God is capable of malevolent intent. In a July 3, 1860, letter to Gray, Darwin explicitly raises the issue. He writes: One word more on "designed laws" & "undesigned results." I see a bird which I want for food, take my gun & kill it, I do this designedly.--An innocent & good man stands under tree & is killed by flash of lightning. Do you believe (& I really shd like to hear) that God designedly killed this man? Many or most person do believe this; I can't & don't.--If you believe so, do you believe that when a swallow snaps up a gnat that God designed that that particular swallow shd snap up that particular gnat at that particular instant? I believe that the man & the gnat are in same predicament.--If the death of neither man or gnat are designed, I see no good reason to believe that their first birth or production shd be necessarily designed. Yet, as I said before, I cannot persuade myself that electricity acts, that the tree grows, that man aspires to loftiest conceptions all from blind, brute force.12 What Darwin wanted was Design without suffering, teleology without agony, purpose without pain. This issue becomes the focus of discussion following the third article of a series that Gray published in The Atlantic Monthly in July, August, and October of 1860. When these articles were reprinted as a chapter in Gray's Darwiniana, the chapter was titled "Natural Selection not Inconsistent with Natural Theology." The passage that focused the discussion for Darwin was this: "We should advise Mr. Darwin to assume, in the philosophy of his hypothesis, that variation has been led along certain beneficial lines."13 After stating that the article was "admirable," Darwin responded to Gray in these words: But I grieve to say that I cannot honestly go as far as you do about Design .... [Y]ou lead me to infer that you believe "that variation has been led along certain beneficial lines."--I cannot believe this; & I think you would have to believe, that the tail of the fan-tail was led to vary in the number & direction of its feathers in order to gratify the caprice of a few men.14 In September, Darwin responded to a question from Gray and informed him of his correspondence with Lyell on the subject of Design. In a lengthy passage, he wrote: Your question of what would convince me of Design is a poser. If I saw an angel come down to teach us good, & I was convinced, from others seeing him, that I was not mad, I shd believe in design. If I could be convinced thoroughly that life & mind was in an unknown way a function of other imponderable forces, I shd be convinced .... I have lately been corresponding with Lyell, who, I think, adopts your idea of the stream of variation having been led or designed. I have asked him (& he says he will hereafter reflect & answer me) whether he believes that the shape of my nose was designed. If he does, I have nothing more to say. If not, seeing what Fanciers have done by selecting individual differences in the nasal bones of Pigeons, I must think that it is illogical to suppose that the variations, which Nat. Selection preserves for the good of any being, have been designed. But I know that I am in the same sort of muddle (as I have said before) as all the world seems to be in with respect to free will, yet with every supposed to have been foreseen or preordained.15 Finally, in December, Darwin sent up the white flag, conceding that "f anything is designed, certainly Man must be; one's 'inner consciousness' (though a false guide) tells one so; yet I cannot admit that man's rudimentary mammae ... & pug-nose were designed .... I am in thick mud;--the orthodox would say in fetid abominable mud."[/1]16 From this point on, the topic is not as central in their correspondence. Following the publication of Darwin's book on orchids, however, he asked Gray to look at the last chapter, since Darwin believed that it bore on the design question. Gray's response was found in both his review of the book and in a letter to Darwin. In his review, he praised Darwin for having "brought back teleological considerations into botany." He concluded: We faithfully believe that both natural science and natural theology will richly gain, and equally gain, whether we view each varied form as original, or whether we come to conclude, with Mr. Darwin, that they are derived:--the grand and most important inference of design in nature being drawn from the same data, subject to similar difficulties, and enforced by nearly the same considerations, in the one case as in the other.17 Gray may have believed that Darwin "brought back teleological considerations into botany," and Darwin may have swung that way in his book on orchids, but by 1867 Darwin had definitely swung back to the other side. http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Miles.html

The way I see it, this is crucial. Just think about it.... That Darwin even considered the idea of a design/God .....what a boost for the ID camp! Dawkins and followers might as well just throw in the towel. And I do believe Darwin was conflicted, and I do believe that he truly meant his capitulation at the time. Even though he recanted and swung right back into the atheist position....just the fact that he considered it....something prodded him to consider it. It gives a lot of weight to the ID theory. Especially when philosopher Antony Flew (considered a hardcore legend among atheist) suddenly embraced deism....stating that ID is more convincing. I have something to back up my argument, but I'm out of time right now. And will be quite busy for the next couple of days. Sorry....but I'll be back.

No, not recant in theory. Recant in his capitulation about design/God. Why, was there a deathbed recant? I didn't know about that.

Don't get me wrong, I admire Darwin. More so that I've researched a bit about him. You're right, it is a humble admission of uncertainty. I'm not attacking him. It is his theory that is on center-stage here. A theory that's being pushed and passed up for a fact. When in fact it's far from that!

Sir Charles Lyell, 1st Baronet, KT, FRS (14 November 1797 – 22 February 1875) was a Scottish lawyer, geologist, and proponent of uniformitarianism. He was the foremost geologist of his day, and an influence on the young Charles Darwin. Lyell first became aware of the ideas of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck when he was 26, in 1827. A letter to Mantell reads, in part, as follows: "I devoured Lamark... his theories delighted me... I am glad that he has been courageous enough and logical enough to admit that his argument, if pushed as far as it must go, if worth anything, would prove that men may have come from the Ourang-Outang. But after all, what changes species may really undergo!... That the Earth is quite as old as he supposes, has long been my creed..."[10] Later, Darwin became a close personal friend, and Lyell was one of the first scientists to support On the Origin of Species, though he did not subscribe to all its contents. Lyell was also a friend of Darwin's closest colleagues, Hooker and Huxley, but unlike them he struggled to square his religious beliefs with evolution. This inner struggle has been much commented on. He had particular difficulty in believing in natural selection as the main motive force in evolution.[14][15][16] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lyell CHARLES DARWIN TO C. LYELL. Ilkley Wells, Yorkshire, November 23 [1859]. My dear Lyell, You seemed to have worked admirably on the species question; there could not have been a better plan than reading up on the opposite side. I rejoice profoundly that you intend admitting the doctrine of modification in your new edition (It appears from Sir Charles Lyell's published letters that he intended to admit the doctrine of evolution in a new edition of the 'Manual,' but this was not published till 1865. He was, however, at work on the 'Antiquity of Man' in 1860, and had already determined to discuss the 'Origin' at the end of the book.); nothing, I am convinced, could be more important for its success. I honour you most sincerely. To have maintained in the position of a master, one side of a question for thirty years, and then deliberately give it up, is a fact to which I much doubt whether the records of science offer a parallel. For myself, also, I rejoice profoundly; for, thinking of so many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years, often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy. Now I look at it as morally impossible that investigators of truth, like you and Hooker, can be wholly wrong, and therefore I rest in peace. Thank you for criticisms, which, if there be a second edition, I will attend to. I have been thinking that if I am much execrated as an atheist, etc., whether the admission of the doctrine of natural selection could injure your works; but I hope and think not, for as far as I can remember, the virulence of bigotry is expended on the first offender, and those who adopt his views are only pitied as deluded, by the wise and cheerful bigots. http://charles-darwin.classic-literature.c...ook-page-12.asp

Questioning his own theory suggests that he himself is not sure about it. Of course that doesn't prove that it is incorrect. BUT, when other scientists - including modern-day scientists - not only question it too, but refute it. Then there's the fossil record....well just like law - you know- when circumstantial evidence(s) start piling up....

This is the reason for this thread: I used this quote to show that Darwin questioned his own theory. Segnasaur challenged my comment and said he did not. And he posted his own quote by Darwin. So I got to TalkOrigin (highly recommended site by Segnasaur) and posted both our quotes. In full. But his quote and explanation did not change my position. In fact, reading both quotes....I could still see Darwin questioning his theory....although he is bravely determined to pursue and prove it right. There was no strong conviction in his words. He sounded more like he is rallying himself, trying to bolster himslef...trying to convince himself that he is right. So I did some research. I've found some interesting evidences that not only show that he was no doubt questioning his own theory.....but also he considered "design" or "God". He wavered! He capitulated at one point and agreed, and later recanted.

Okay....just to make you happy Seg, this one's for you. Just so you can't say I'm taking things out of context. Here's the whole paragraph where my quote came from. And I took the liberty of posting the whole section from where your quote came from. And see?....I got them from your own fave site. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/introduction.html I still maintain that Darwin questioned his own theory. In fact he wavered....and considered "design." Now I don't want to hijack this thread....so let me make another thread solely for Mr Darwin.

Yeah. Abstract. How can we prove or dis-prove? Can he truly say "there is no God?" However, we do know that some scientists have convincing arguments that there is at least, Intelligent Design/Designer. Arguments and evidences enough to convince hard-core atheist philosopher Antony Flew (a legend among atheists I'm told) to change his position from atheism to deism. Someone told me that personal interviews shouldn't be considered when trying to learn about the man. That "his books will tell what he truly thinks." Will they? Truly? What if you're writing for a special audience...will you reveal your innermost thoughts that may somehow cast doubt on what you're trying to sell? That may cast doubt on your credibility? I think personal interviews can reveal something about a person. It'll be hard to check out what you said and there'll be no editing it several times to your heart's content until it shows how you want it to be seen by your target audience.

That's only practical. Quite a few of them out there I imagine. When you've got intelligence, the gift of gab, good packaging/marketing, the clout....not difficult. Dawkins probably, sincerely think he is! If he's starting to change his thinking/stance on the existence of God or a god or "Intelligent Designer," It will be very hard for him to come out and just proclaim it....perched on such an exalted position, as the self-proclaimed redeemer and leader/god of atheists. That's power. Several learned men, some of them from the scientific field had set out to investigate, research and learn about Jesus...ending up as believers. They didn't embrace the faith out of "ignorance." Check out the other thread, "Rejoice On This Day!"

That's a good point. We see how "science" plays quite a very powerful role in society today....even involved in political games! Some scientists use their clout. Suzuki successfully managed to stake his claim as the environmental guru....his words are commandments that fundamentalist environmentalists absorb and follow without question. Dawkins uses science, his popularity and unquestioning faith of his fundamentalist followers in promoting what seems to be his main priority: trashing religion, and faith in God. Establishing the religion of Atheism.

Anyway, back to the article by Melanie Phillips. Dawkins backtracked from that "blooper." Even so...twice now so far on this thread shows a glimpse of what might not be a "blooper" after all.

Dawkins intrigues me. After all, he is the self-proclaimed "redeemer" of the terribly oppressed atheists, and practically declared war on followers of religion. He seemed to have sought the controversy so avidly what with all the slew of books attacking faith of those who believe in God. His focus is not on science. But something seems to be happening inside this man....

Gosthacked, In the other thread, as I've stated, my being a creationist is not the point. You are insisting that it is....but I know that it isn't. You refuse to understand what I was saying in that thread, and I refuse to be manipulated into what you seem to want to be discussed instead. I've repeated my point in that thread several times. It's up to you if you want to check them out. I have no wish to go on a pointless circular discussion. I've said all I have to say in that thread. Now, I've created this particular thread solely for the discussion of Dawkins....or musings about and/or the study of Dawkins. I purposefully started this thread out of respect for the original poster of that other thread. You can join if you wish to...but I hope that you try to remain on topic. You should tell Cybercoma he can go on and move along without you. He found his way in here on his own...therefore he can find his way out without you holding his hand. Tell him to mind his own business. He's not your keeper. And I assume you're not his sitter. Btw, you didn't drag him in this thread against his will, did you? He just couldn't keep away from illogical people. I've always wondered why he carries that name...Cybercoma. Just woke up? He must still be disoriented...confused.

Do you even know what the word "excerpts" means? I gave you the links, didn't I? If you're going to be disruptive and trashy....kindly do it on your own thread.

This is really getting interesting. About a year later from that interview... Excerpts from... IS RICHARD DAWKINS STILL EVOLVING? by: Melanie Phillips Thursday, 23rd October 2008 "On Tuesday evening I attended the debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox at Oxford’s Natural History Museum. This was the second public encounter between the two men, but it turned out to be very different from the first. Lennox is the Oxford mathematics professor whose book, God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? is to my mind an excoriating demolition of Dawkins’s overreach from biology into religion as expressed in his book The God Delusion -- all the more devastating because Lennox attacks him on the basis of science itself. In the first debate, which can be seen on video on this website, Dawkins was badly caught off-balance by Lennox’s argument precisely because, possibly for the first time, he was being challenged on his own chosen scientific ground. This week’s debate, however, was different because from the off Dawkins moved it onto safer territory– and at the very beginning made a most startling admission. He said: A serious case could be made for a deistic God." http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips...-evolving.thtml

If you've got nothing substantial to contribute on this topic, kindly move aside. Thank you.

What's he on about here? He's definitely talking - in a gibbly-de-gook way - about Intelligent Design/Designer. No matter how he tries to avoid saying ID, at the very least that's what it is! Otherwise, he's definitely talking about God or a god!

What do you think about his musings on the possibility of you know...the Name he doesn't want to invoke?

What are you on about this "quote mining" nonsense? Of course I'm going to quote sources that will prove or support my argument. Just because I find a lot of sources that help my argument, and mostly bust yours...you're crying waaaah "quote mining! Not fair! Waaah! Look at your response. "Uhhh...no." AND???? And what??? "No" to all, I assume. You're pretty sure about that, right? Actually I advise you to do the same....dig! Mine those quotes. Like as if I'd take your word just like that! Most especially not after your rant about mythological stuff! So you don't like seeing the quotes. Well then, I guess this thread will give you nightmares. You ain't seen nothing yet.

That interview wasn't supposed to be my opening for this thread....but its content surprised and floored me. So many questions about dah man. Is Dawkins re-defining his stance? Subtly preparing and paving the way for the right time when he'll formally proclaim it? Is it just conceit and pride that stop him from coming outright and throwing his support behind Intelligent Design/Intelligent Designer theory? Is it just conceit and pride that force him to stay with his refuted theory of evolution....even though he knows that the ID theory carries more weight? Is he "softening" his fundamentalist Atheist attitude towards God and religion....because he realize it's only making people skeptic about his motive, thus hurting the credibility of true science? He sounded wishy-washy. I know he is brilliant..., but like some brilliant men...is he "losing" it?

Excerpts from... From The Times May 10, 2007 By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondednt GOD....IN OTHER WORDS Richard Dawkins may be Britain’s foremost atheist, but he is willing to be inspired and uplifted. Is he a believer after all? Richard Dawkins believes that children should grow up reading the Bible and has a “soft spot” for the Church of England. He also believes some of the historic atrocities of human behaviour were not inspired by religion, but were a result of our “ruthless Darwinian past”. And he believes in the possibility of a transcendent “intelligence” existing beyond the range of present human experience. It is just that he refuses to call it God. These are just some of the more surprising confessions to come from the man variously described as Britain’s angriest atheist and the self-appointed Devil’s chaplain. I put it to him that negative criticism can finish off a book or a play, especially intelligently argued criticism, and that one of the ambivalences I feel about interviewing him is that his mission in life seems to be to destroy something that’s my livelihood. “I think it’ll see you out. I think there’ll be plenty to write about. And under the banner of religion you can write about what I call Einsteinian religion, which I subscribe to and so do many scientists as a sort of reverence for the Universe and life, which has nothing to do with anything supernatural.” In GD, Dawkins quotes Einstein as saying that he prefers not to call himself religious, because that implies “supernatural”. But Einstein acknowledged that behind everything “there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly”. Dawkins admits: “If that’s what you call religion then I’m religious.” But when I suggest that, in this case, he is in touch with the transcendent, he accuses me of “playing with words”. He says: “If by transcendent you mean what Einstein believed then yes, but what I think, to come back on your statement that more intelligent and sophisticated religious people believe something close to what Einstein and I believe, that may be true, but they are a tiny minority of religious people in the world. It’s the majority of religious people in the world that we have to worry about.” He does suggest in GD, however, that some of the irrationality of religion may stem from the same place as the irrationality of love. “I think it’s right to say anthropologists would tell us that all human cultures have some form of religion. Which might make it hard to get rid of. It certainly doesn’t make it true.” He denies that he is setting up an alternative religion, an atheistic lack-of-belief system. He also resists the conclusion that, if God and religion are no more than human creations, his attack on religion is an attack on humanity, perhaps evidence of a certain degree of misanthropy. “There’s a lot to criticise in humanity that has nothing to do with religion, but that doesn’t detract from the importance of criticising religion as well and I would criticise the brutality of Stalin and Hitler, the idiotic beliefs that they had.” He is equally critical of fundamentalist Darwinism. “A lot of what is good about human history has been an emancipation, a weaning, of humanity away from our ruthless Darwinian past,” he says. “As a Darwinian, I see that.” He even agrees that religion might have helped “a bit” in this civilising process, and that something is needed to stop humanity slipping back into the extremes of Darwinian natural selection. By now it is clear that the thing Dawkins really detests is not so much God, or even religion, but superstition. But was there not, in his mind, a tiny possibility that one of these future physicists could discover God in one of these dimensions? “Well, I’m convinced that future physicists will discover something at least as wonderful as any god you could ever imagine.” Why not call it God? “I don’t think it’s helpful to call it God.” OK, but what would “it” be like? “I think it’ll be something wonderful and amazing and something difficult to understand. I think that all theological conceptions will be seen as parochial and petty by comparison.” He can even see how “design” by some gigantic intelligence might come into it. “But that gigantic intelligence itself would need an explanation. It’s not enough to call it God, it would need some sort of explanation such as evolution. Maybe it evolved in another universe and created some computer simulation that we are all a part of. These are all science-fiction suggestions but I am trying to overcome the limitations of the 21st-century mind. It’s going to be grander and bigger and more beautiful and more wonderful and it’s going to put theology to shame.” The day before we met I received by e-mail a promotion from the Richard Dawkins Foundation for a new DVD series for children, Growing up in the Universe. It looked superb and I will buy a set for my young son. I tell him how similar it was to receiving text from a religious company, the blurb almost like a creed. “You’re very close to being right,” he admits. How could I be more right? “To be spot-on would be to say that this had nothing to do with the sort of religion that believes in a divine creator who forgives sins, answers prayers and listens to your innermost thoughts, cares about your sex life, does all the things that the Christian God is supposed to.” It would be a “mysterious-beyond-present-comprehension physics of the future”. He has no name for it. Again, I lob in the words “transcendent” and “numinous”, which I believe sum up what he is trying to describe. God, in other words. “I suspect they don’t mean anything at all,” he says. But being a good scientist, he leaps from the sofa for a dictionary. He reads: “Numinous: divine, spiritual, revealing or indicating the presence of a divinity, awe-inspiring.” A moment’s pause. Then: “I’ll go along with awe-inspiring. Also, aesthetically appealing, uplifting. I’ll go along with aesthetically appealing and uplifting. Those aspects of it, yes. Let’s look for transcendent.” He finds a definition to do with lying beyond the ordinary range of perception. “That’s probably all OK and I could go along with that. Going beyond the range and grasp of the presently experienced. Maybe transcendent would be a good word to adopt.” So there we are. Dawkins sums up our conversation: “I don’t think you and I disagree on anything very much but as a colleague of mine said, it’s just that you say it wrong.” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/f...icle1767506.ece

I stated before that I have nothing against science. And I'll say it again for the benefit of those who most likely, in their zealous effort to defend their own faith, had applied the same method of their master - who constantly overlooks the advice of and fact about Darwin: I have nothing against true science! But I do have a lot against the hypocritical fraud, Dawkins. Right now I am debating whether I should continue on this thread....or perhaps start another thread solely....and lovingly dedicated to Mr. So-full-of-himself: The Jesus-wanna-be. The mini-god.....in the guise of "science," of course. I want to learn and maybe discuss more about your god.

Excerpt from Antony Flew interview: Prof. Antony Flew, 81 years old, is a legendary British philosopher and atheist and has been an icon and champion for unbelievers for decades. His change of mind is significant news, not only about his personal journey, but also about the persuasive power of the arguments modern theists have been using to challenge atheistic naturalism. The interviewer is Dr. Gary Habermas, a prolific philosopher and historian from Liberty University who has debated Flew several times. They have maintained a friendship despite their years of disagreement on the existence of God. In January 2004, Flew informed Habermas that he had indeed become a theist. While still rejecting the concept of special revelation, whether Christian, Jewish or Islamic, nonetheless he had concluded that theism was true. In Flew’s words, he simply “had to go where the evidence leads.” (7) HABERMAS: Then, would you comment on your “openness” to the notion of theistic revelation? FLEW: Yes. I am open to it, but not enthusiastic about potential revelation from God. On the positive side, for example, I am very much impressed with physicist Gerald Schroeder’s comments on Genesis 1. (10) That this biblical account might be scientifically accurate raises the possibility that it is revelation. HABERMAS: You very kindly noted that our debates and discussions had influenced your move in the direction of theism. (11) You mentioned that this initial influence contributed in part to your comment that naturalistic efforts have never succeeded in producing “a plausible conjecture as to how any of these complex molecules might have evolved from simple entities.” (12) Then in your recently rewritten introduction to the forthcoming edition of your classic volume God and Philosophy, you say that the original version of that book is now obsolete. You mention a number of trends in theistic argumentation that you find convincing, like big bang cosmology, fine tuning and Intelligent Design arguments. Which arguments for God’s existence did you find most persuasive? FLEW: I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries. I’ve never been much impressed by the kalam cosmological argument, and I don’t think it has gotten any stronger recently. However, I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it. HABERMAS: So of the major theistic arguments, such as the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological, the only really impressive ones that you take to be decisive are the scientific forms of teleology? FLEW: Absolutely. It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design. http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/page2.cfm

ANTONY FLEW Prof. Antony Flew, 81 years old, is a legendary British philosopher and atheist and has been an icon and champion for unbelievers for decades. His change of mind is significant news, not only about his personal journey, but also about the persuasive power of the arguments modern theists have been using to challenge atheistic naturalism. The interviewer is Dr. Gary Habermas, a prolific philosopher and historian from Liberty University who has debated Flew several times. They have maintained a friendship despite their years of disagreement on the existence of God. Antony Flew and Gary Habermas met in February 1985 in Dallas, Texas. The occasion was a series of debates between atheists and theists, featuring many influential philosophers, scientists, and other scholars. (1) A short time later, in May 1985, Flew and Habermas debated at Liberty University before a large audience. The topic that night was the resurrection of Jesus. (2) Although Flew was arguably the world’s foremost philosophical atheist, he had intriguingly also earned the distinction of being one of the chief philosophical commentators on the topic of miracles. (3) Habermas specialized on the subject of Jesus’ resurrection. (4) Thus, the ensuing dialogue on the historical evidence for the central Christian claim was a natural outgrowth of their research. Over the next twenty years, Flew and Habermas developed a friendship, writing dozens of letters, talking often, and dialoguing twice more on the resurrection. In April 2000 they participated in a live debate on the Inspiration Television Network, moderated by John Ankerberg. (5) In January 2003 they again dialogued on the resurrection at California Polytechnic State University–San Luis Obispo. (6) During a couple telephone discussions shortly after their last dialogue, Flew explained to Habermas that he was considering becoming a theist. While Flew did not change his position at that time, he concluded that certain philosophical and scientific considerations were causing him to do some serious rethinking. He characterized his position as that of atheism standing in tension with several huge question marks. Then, a year later, in January 2004, Flew informed Habermas that he had indeed become a theist. While still rejecting the concept of special revelation, whether Christian, Jewish or Islamic, nonetheless he had concluded that theism was true. In Flew’s words, he simply “had to go where the evidence leads.” (7) http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/