Brain Fertilizer

Don't get too excited, there's an old atheist saying, "There's only one difference between you and me. I believe in one less god". Flew isn't talking about a Christian or Muslim god. He has some other notion in mind. He's still an atheist and heretic as far as any popular religions go. http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369

Be careful, he might just be setting you up for some book sales. His only concession is that he lacks the imagination to understand how life could have originated. He isn't a biologist and has admitted to not keeping up on the subject.

The god of Spinoza, Aristotle, or Einstein is not neccesary of the kind that is going to restore forced prayer in public school.

There is certainly more to the universe that we understand. Seems to me that giving the label "God" to whatever we are ignorant about the world is not something that Christians should aspire to. It's an ever-shrinking notion of God.

The notion of God that Flew is toying with would evaporate at the first experiment where a scientist gets a batch of raw chemicals to form any sort of replicating agent.

BTW, if Witt is quoting Flew correct here: ""Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the 14th chapter of 'The Origin of Species,' pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers." then Flew is really out of touch with the writings of Dawkins. Dawkins makes it quite clear he is aware of this.

I am not so sure Witt is quoting correctly thought after reading this: "If we trace evolution backwards, we reach a primitive single cell from which nothing simpler could survive and reproduce. How did it come to be? This first cell must be produced by something other than natural selection — a point Darwin readily conceded." That's a Michael Moore quality paragraph. He is trying to imply that Darwin believed that nothing simpler than a cell could replicate. I don't recall every reading any such thing from Darwin.

That is exactly the point Dawkins gets into in his book "The Selfish Gene". He brings up the issue of the possibility of simplier replicators. The fact that no advanced life would have existed on the planet at that point would make the issue of survival all that more simple. After all there would be no competition for even the simplest replicator. Dawkins covers this in great detail along with many interwined issues.

All I can say to Witt is "Open a book".

God created man!
God created the moon!
God created electricity!
God created rabbits!
These statements are not scientific nor are they theories.
They are statements of religious beliefs.
You cannot argue with people about their religious beliefs, it doesn’t get you anywhere.

“Evolution theory” is a whole branch of science. It is continually being modified and updated in response to discoveries and experiments performed as suggested by the theories.
In Science, beliefs only exist until the next experiment, when they could be instantly changed.
The main purpose in Science is not to “prove” anything; it is to increase ones knowledge of the Physical World.

Science and Religion don’t mix. Both are necessary

The only thing I'd change in your statement, Geoffrey, is:
You cannot argue with people about their belief systems, it doesn’t get you anywhere.

...try explaining the problems of evolution to a militant evolutionists. Try explaining to an atheist that their belief system isn't superior to a religious belief system. Try pointing out to someone who believes in Science! that the Newtonian physics upon which they base their world-view have been disproven, and that mechanistic logic is nothing more than a useful illusion.

Religious believers aren't the only stubborn ones out there.

I've updated my blog post (check the trackback). Flew has stated on the 16th of Dec 2004 that this is another baseless rumor.