Originally Posted By: Ellis
The smallest single cell is more complex than a house for us to create, but it is not evidence of god or any supernatural being, any more than it is proof of the existence of a soul.

This is because you have been conditioned to believe that the universe can be created and fine tuned to produce incredible complexity and mind out of inanimate matter by UTTER CHANCE.

On the other hand, Anthony Flew, after being a leading atheist for 50 years has decided that current scientific knowledge presents an overwhelming case that what we see could only have arisen as the result of a guiding intelligence.

His very lucid book, 'There is a God' sets out his journey.

In an interview he recently said -

Wiker: You say in 'There is a God', that "it may well be that no one is as surprised as I am that my exploration of the Divine has after all these years turned from denial…to discovery." Everyone else was certainly very surprised as well, perhaps all the more so since on our end, it seemed so sudden. But in There is a God, we find that it was actually a very gradual process—a "two decade migration," as you call it. God was the conclusion of a rather long argument, then. But wasn't there a point in the "argument" where you found yourself suddenly surprised by the realization that "There is a God" after all? So that, in some sense, you really did "hear a Voice that says" in the evidence itself " 'Can you hear me now?'"

Flew: "There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion."

So much for the atheist argument that science leads to atheistic materialism. It is only Dawkins, Dennett, Harris & Hitchens who are so dogmatic and fundamental in their seething anger that they cannot see where the evidence is truly leading.

The great deception of the Twentieth Century was that we can get mind from mud. The Twenty-First Century will show how much of a fantasy the idea is.


Edited by Socrates2007 (11/04/07 12:33 PM)