Oxford Gene Technology

The Scientific World is turning to God. As people have certainly been influenced by me, I want to try and correct the enormous damage I may have done. (Anthony Flew) The newspapers these days are echoing with these regret-filled words by Antony Flew, in his time a well-known atheist philosopher. The 81-year-old British professor of philosophy Flew chose to become an atheist at the age of 15, and first made a name for himself in the academic field with a paper published in 1950. In the 54 years that followed, he defended atheism as a teacher at the universities of Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reading, at many American and Canadian universities he visited, in debates, books, lecture halls and articles. In recent days, however, Flew has announced that he has abandoned this error and accepts that the universe was created. The decisive factor in this radical change of view is the clear and definitive evidence revealed by science on the subject of creation. Flew realized, in the face of the information-based complexity of life, that the true origin of life is intelligent design and that the atheism he had espoused for 66 years was a discredited philosophy. Flew announced the scientific reasons underlying this change in belief in these terms: Biologists investigation of DNA has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved. [1] It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism. [2] I have been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinarily complicated creature. [3] The DNA research which Flew cites as a fundamental reason for his change of opinion has indeed revealed striking facts about creation. The helix shape of the DNA molecule, its possession of the genetic code, the nucleotide strings that refute blind chance, the storage of encyclopedic quantities of information and many other striking findings have revealed that the structure and functions of this molecule were arranged for life with a special design. Comments by scientists concerned with DNA research bear witness to this fact. Francis Crick, for instance, one of the scientists who revealed the helix shape of DNA admitted in the face of the findings regarding DNA that the origin of life indicated a miracle: An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. [4] Based on his calculations, Led Adleman of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles has stated that one gram of DNA can store as much information as a trillion compact discs. [5] Gene Myers, a scientist employed on the Human Genome Project, has said the following in the face of the miraculous arrangements he witnessed: What really astounds me is the architecture of life The system is extremely complex. Its like it was designed Theres a huge intelligence there. [6] The most striking fact about DNA is that the existence of the coded genetic information can definitely not be explained in terms of matter and energy or natural laws. Dr. Werner Gitt, a professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, has said this on the subject: A code system is always the result of a mental process It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this. [7] Creationist scientists and philosophers played a major role in Flews acceptance of intelligent design, backed up by all these findings. In recent times Flew participated in debates with scientists and philosophers who were proponents of creation, and exchanged ideas with them. The final turning point in that process was a discussion organized by the Institute for Metascientific Research in Texas in May, 2003. Professor Flew participated in the discussion together with the author, Roy Abraham Varghese, a physicist, and the molecular biologist, Gerald Schroeder. Flew was impressed by the weight of the scientific evidence in favor of creation and by the convincing nature of his opponents arguments and abandoned atheism as an idea in the period following that discussion. In a letter he wrote for the August-September, 2003, edition of the British magazine Philosophy Now, he recommended Schroeders book The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth and Vargheses book The Wonderful World. [8] During an interview with the professor of philosophy and theology Gary R. Habermas, who also played a major role in his change of mind,[9] and also on the video Has Science Discovered God? He openly stated that he believed in intelligent design. The Intelligence Pervading the Universe and the Collapse of Atheism In the face of all the scientific developments outlined above, the acceptance of intelligent design by Anthony Flew, famous for defending atheism for many years, reflects a final scene in the process of collapse which atheism is being subjected to Modern science has revealed the existence of an intelligence pervading the universe, thus leaving atheism out of the equation. In his book The Hidden Face of God, Gerald Schroeder, one of the creationist scientists who influenced Flew, writes: A single consciousness, a universal wisdom, pervades the universe. The discoveries of science, those that search the quantum nature of subatomic matter, have moved us to the brink of a startling realization: All existence is the expression of this wisdom. In the laboratories we experience it as information that first physically articulated as energy and then condensed into the form of matter. Every particle, every being, from atom to human, appears to represent a level of information, of wisdom. [10] Scientific research into both the functioning of the cell and the subatomic particles of matter has revealed this fact in an indisputable manner: Life and the universe were brought into being from nothing by the will of an entity possessed of a superior mind and wisdom. There is no doubt that the possessor of that knowledge and mind that designed the universe at all levels is Almighty God. God reveals these truths in many verses of the Quran. Footnotes: [1] Richard N. Ostling, Lifelong atheist changes mind about divine creator, The Washington Times 10 December 2004; () [2] Antony Flew, Letter from Antony Flew on Darwinism and Theology, Philosophy Now; () [3] Stuart Wavell and Will Iredale, Sorry, says atheist-in-chief, I do believe in God after all, The Sunday Times, 12 December 2004; (,,2087-1400368,00. Html) [4] Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 88 [5] John Whitfield, Physicists plunder lifes tool chest, 24 April 2003; () [6] San Francisco Chronicle, 19 February, 2001 [7] Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, CLV, Bielenfeld, Germany, pp. 64-7, 79 [8] Antony Flew, Letter from Antony Flew on Darwinism and Theology, Philosophy Now; () [9] Atheist Becomes Theist: Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew; () [10] Gerald Schroeder, The Hidden Face of God, Touchston. After looking around, I learned — Sorry, the term "Creationist scientist" has as much credibility to me as "atheist theologian" would have to you. An example of poor scientific statement in your article: "There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information . . . " Since clearly there indeed appears to be (because it has happened), a true scientist making that statement would explain his basis for this statement. It's like someone telling you that water can't freeze, but ignoring all the ice in the world. By the way, how much of your money does "creationist scientists" make from books that tell you what you want to hear?


16 Comments

  1. Dee Baghwan95

    First, you are not my sibling, I know them all, you are definately not one of them. Second, if the views of one person affects you so profoundly, especially a guy at the end of his days who is must have hedging his bets just in case, then you are a very short sighted person. I'm not all that surprised that you have to cut and paste, you probably haven't had an original thought in your entire life. Do you know what an agnostic is? An atheist with no balls.

    Reply
  2. Marcalo Robot94

    Such a wonderful question. Personally, I know there is much about this universe I do not know or understand. Great Scientist in mankind's history have been in majority believers in any kind of Creator beyond human comprehension. Hope this helps you and yours. Please never stop learning or contributuing so much.

    Reply
  3. J. Hall

    I'm not reading all that copy and paste. But the answer is no.

    Reply
  4. Tiger X1617

    God exist, it is just to what degree of existence that seems to be in dispute. What I mean by god exist is that as idea it exist no matter what, now as explanation this is where the dispute begins. If you are fairly knowledgeable in science then you began to realize that if left to chance the odds are stacked humans to have ever come to exist the more we learn the more we find how greatly those odds are so it seems quite natural that someone would say OK maybe there's something else going on, like we were meant to exist. Science and religion are really to tools that seek to do the same thing, find answers, that they would overlap at some point seems inevitable. As for me I hope there's a pervading order to the universe because that would mean we could hope to someday understand it, but of course that'll always beg the question from Where does the order arise. God is a really good answer to that question for the reasons you pointed out in the above. That being the case it would not be unreasonable to continue on under that assumption, however the god as defined by the above is not the classic sense of the word at all, but rather it is similar to saying there's a reason that humans can make sense of and gain knowledge about the universe. [edit]to tooka you are just attacking the classical christian god, and that is not very productive as it has already been shown to be an in accurate discription. I should remind you that atheism requires faith and asserts a universal truth and in my opinion is just as much a religion as is christianity, perhaps some should consider this when they accuse religion of one evil or another. So far as science is concerened the number of universe that can exist without humans is far greater then the number that can suport humans if you don't think that is interesting then tell me what is. Trina when you say life has been created do you mean that humans have made life to arrise from matter that was not living prior to human interfence i. E. Humans recreated life at a basic level or do you simply mean that we can use biological material to create new life. If we formed life without any biological aid in a lab somewhere this is news to me and if anyone can tell me where to read up on this I would be grateful.

    Reply
  5. Marcalo X1314

    That's disgusting. After all these years, I always took solace in one thing; that science was on OUR side. But now, we can't be too sure, now can we?

    Reply
  6. Mary-Kathryn990

    Humans are very good at making mistakes. They also get a bee in their bonnet. They can also just be silly. For someone to return to theism after a lifetime of an atheistic inclination is unusual but I seriously doubt that science will ever be overturned by the "theory" of intelligent design. I myself am very much aware of the complexity involved in the process of evolution from the very beginning of the universe to the formation of prhymeval hydrogen and so on onto today. I see no need whatsoever for a designer. If the designer is there and he is responsible for the design of my life, I would sincerely love to kick him in the posterior region for a few million eons. Who would design such a crapfest as my life is?

    Reply
  7. Sunna

    God is the why, science is the how. People can believe fully in God and still want to how the universe works. Science and God are not mutually exclusive. If God hadn't wanted us to question and analyze our world, why did he make us curious?

    Reply
  8. Wizard Masterson905

    I cannot read all that

    Reply
  9. Ms Lowell

    Sure

    Reply
  10. Dharmu X1

    Antony Flew's conclusion in later life was based on an ancient philosophical insight that the contingency of the world presupposes a reality that is not contingent. He did not give assent to a personal God or to a particular revelation. He did not experience something akin to a religious conversion, he simply changed his mind in regards to the ideas that the universe is simply in itself self-explanatory and that a materialist philosophy can account for the mystery of the intelligibility of existence.

    Reply
  11. Randi

    Sounds more like aliens than God. . . What the heck do you think God knows about DNA ?

    Reply
  12. Marcalo Baghwan

    I read it. Apparently he has missed the latest: Life has been synthetically created. I think as he approaches death, he faces his fear of dieing. He is looking for something to cling to. Fear has changed this man's mind.

    Reply
  13. Randi Baghwan

    Bull. We all evolved from single celled organisms over MILLIONS OF YEARS not seven days. Today's christianity is just the evolutionary worship of just one local deity. Haven't you ever noticed how religeons tend to differ only in their cultural elements? They all come down to the same things: Do good.

    Reply
  14. Mrs Robot

    No. The scientific world is not jumping the fence. This is simply an old bird getting shaky as his mortality nears. It is a very typical occurrence in the medical field. Reading through any of your paragraphs indicates that any of the quoted do not understand, fully, the definition, or concept, of evolution. Might I suggest, "The Selfish Gene," by R. Dawkins to be read and understood by those you quote. Additionally, humans find it very hard to believe so much complexity could have come from proteins and/or genes. The genes or proteins aren't 'intelligent' enough to have method or order. The are fooled by the fact of what can happen over hundreds of millions of years by CHANCE…. Alone.

    Reply
  15. Grace

    Theres' no way i';m reading all that. Suffice it to say that Mr. Flew is now understanding that he was a dupe. Fundies manipulated the poor old man and they wrote the book and basically put his name on it

    Reply
  16. Dharmu Nesmith492

    I agree entirely with the first responder. Firstly, there is simply no evidence of any sort which suggests the existence of any sort of god, and there is a considerable amount which indicates there is no such thing [ref. 1]. Secondly, religion requires the belief in supernatural phenomena, while science explicitly disallows such; no person can simultaneously be both religious and a true scientist. But the principal difficulty with the god notion is that it is provably useless: You cannot use any theory of god to predict the outcome of any earthly activity. Which makes it totally pointless.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *