Brain Fertilizer

Dude's old and knows his days are limited. Funny how science loses its "perfection" when you realize you're about to kick it and that perfect science ain't going to help.

Perfect science ain't going to help...what? Dying effectively?

People seem not to be paying very close attention to what he was quoted as saying, which is that there was some intelligence that set the evolution of the universe in motion but isn't involved in its daily workings. That doesn't sound like someone who wants cheap comfort or is hedging his bets, at least to me.

He apparently read the book a friend sent me (the Hidden Face of G-d) by Schroeder. It is a great book (thanks again Greg!) I'm reading it and taking notes.

That's the thing: this isn't just "Some Random Atheist Somewhere Finds Mortality the Most Convincing Aspect of Pascal's Wager". This is a noted atheist philosopher who for decades was one of the leading voices arguing that there is no evidence for the existence of God finally admitting that, looking at all the evidence, there is a good case for the existence of a guiding intelligence.
There's been a low-level kerfuffle over the theories of evolution vs intelligent design. Evolutionists have often claimed that intelligent design is not just bad science, it's not science at all. People like me counter that it's not good science to automatically reject any evidence that doesn't fit your paradigm. It gets to the point that even if you make a supremely logical argument, they fall back on the idea that if you are a Christian, you aren't logical in the first place, so any argument you make is invalid, no matter how logical it may sound, QED. Having a guy like this finally see some of the light should help quite a bit in making our arguments.
Hmmm, maybe that's too combative-sounding. Let me rephrase:
Many arguments boil down to who the participants accept as authority. It gets really funny when atheists accept Albert Einstein as an authority when it comes to science but reject his belief in God as irrational. Having an Atheist Authority announce that the totality of scientific evidence points the existence of an intelligent intent is a significant event, indeed.
The books I like and recommend on this issue are About Time, The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World, and God and the New Physics, all by Paul Davies.

As I said on my site, Flew, in reverting to an argument from complexity, seems to have overlooked the infinite chain of complex creators that this requires. And if he thinks one creator is enough, he has to be able to explain rationally why that creator doesn't need a creator, but the universe does. Good luck with it.

An interesting paradox, to be sure...but one that only increases its perplexity if you try to remove God, rather than simplifying as you imply. Good luck with it yourself.

Maybe the best way to put it, though, is that no one has all the knowledge or all the answers. Any belief system necessarily includes some self-contradictions and accepts some troubling ambiguities and uncertainties as we all look for more and better answers.