Anthony Flew Interview

  _____

From: Don Winterstein [mailto:dfwinterstein@msn.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 3:46 AM
To: Rich Blinne; asa
Subject: Re: Anthony Flew Interview

Rich Blinne wrote:

"Note particularly how Flew differs from ID and how his views are
closer to Gerald Schroeder and the strong anthropic principle...."

Still, along with the strong anthropic principle there's "...[Flew's]
comment that
naturalistic efforts have never succeeded in producing 'a plausible
conjecture as to how any of these complex molecules might have evolved
from simple entities.'" And, "It now seems to me that the
findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided
materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."

So while Flew may not endorse ID in the form that its current chief
proponents have made it take, he nevertheless seems to think a designer was
necessary to get from inorganic molecules to DNA and hence to a living cell.
My impression from the interview is that this has no less weight for him
(and perhaps even more weight) than the strong anthropic principle. I.e.,
the universe not only has properties that make life possible, but a designer
was needed to put the molecules together in such a way as to cause life.

Don

Yes, I failed to note the biological aspect of Flew's thought. Since Flew
prefers a teleological argument, it is by definition going to be an argument
about intelligent design. Flew differs from ID in that he affirms the
standard conclusions of science and being a deist is not going for the God
of the gaps approach. The reason I mentioned the SAP was his answer he likes
arguments that proceed from Big Bang and fine-tuning. Schematically the two
systems differ in this way:

ID: Assume modern science is fundamentally wrong then the Universe was
intelligently designed.

AF: Assume modern science is fundamentally right then the Universe was
intelligently designed.

Interestingly, the form of this is a | ~a => b. Therefore b. The conclusion
then is the Universe was intelligently designed!
Received on Thu Dec 30 11:13:41 2004