It appears that the article linked to below is actually from 2001, and was re-posted. See here:
http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=138 and then the updates and story continue here: Antony Flew Considers God...Sort Of http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369 Rumour also has it that Flew has announced his belief that God exists in order to generate attention and controversy. Flew or his agent contacted the Associated Press newswire and NBC News via press release with this "story" on or around the same day that his new video, "Has Science Discovered God?" was released. -Mike Lee ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dennis Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 7:59 AM Subject: RE: Famous Atheist Now Believes in God Professor Flew has published a short response to the rumors about him that are circulating on the internet (and in my local paper). You can read his response here: http://www.rationalistinternational.net/archive/en/rationalist_2004/137. html The title of the piece is "Sorry to disappoint, but I am still an atheist!" Dennis Dennis M. Goff Professor of Psychology Randolph-Macon Woman's College [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: Paul Brandon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 1:29 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences Subject: RE: Famous Atheist Now Believes in God At 12:43 AM -0600 12/12/04, Paul Smith wrote: >This all may be moot, if when the book comes out, it turns out that >the man does have a new argument. The piece that Paul Brandon posted >today refers to an "apparent impossibility of providing a >naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing >species", but doesn't provide the argument for that claim of >impossibility (which is, remember, NOT the same thing as simple >failure to currently have such a naturalistic theory). If there's an >argument that such a theory is impossible, then it's not simply the >argument from ignorance, but it doesn't seem to me that we can tell >yet. This is of course the heart of the Intelligent Design argument (going back to Paley). Most professional philosophers (and of course biologists) have rejected it. among other flaws it's based on requiring a proof of the null hypothesis. As Paul Smith says, lacking some rather spectacular justification (and note flew's own allusions to his declining cognitive abilities) 'pilot error' seems to be the most likely hypothesis. -- "No one in this world, so far as I know, has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people." -H. L. Mencken * PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Psychology Dept Minnesota State University * * 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 * * http://www.mnsu.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html * --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
