The article proves nothing but that its author is a religionist, and writes with a religionist bias and a disregard for fact or proper forensic practice. I submit that not only is the article indeed biased, but also that it amounts to proselytizing, per the focus of the website on which it appears. Interestingly, the article neglects to mention Flew, the "Reformed Athiest" at the center of its proposition, in no way endorsed, and in fact rejected, the tenets of the Abrahamic mythopaeia, Flew stating "I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam ... ", and emphatically disavowing any belief in an afterlife.
The article goes on to misconstrue several statements made by scientists, implying, for instance, that Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, endorses ID-iocy:
Quote: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.
. Taken out of context, and construed to fit the article's premise, the Crick quote never the less does not indicate Crick's endorsement of any religionist tenet.
In fact, the following is an accurate representation of Crick's view on the issue:
Quote: ... Speaking to The Telegraph, Crick, 86, said: "The god hypothesis is rather discredited." Indeed, he says his distaste for religion was one of his prime motives in the work that led to the sensational 1953 discovery.
"I went into science because of these religious reasons, there's no doubt about that. I asked myself what were the two things that appear inexplicable and are used to support religious beliefs: the difference between living and nonliving things, and the phenomenon of consciousness."
Crick argues that since many of the actual claims made by specific religions over 2,000 years have proved false, the burden of proof should be on the claims they make today, rather than on atheists to disprove the existence of God.
Source
The article is biased, it is unscientific, it is dishonest, and it is typical of its genre. Poppycock is poppycock, whether Judaic, Islamist or Christian. That is not to say there may not be validity to any such proposition, but merely to point out the poppycock so far in these discussions employed to prop up any religionist proposition is what it is; poppycock.
While religionists frequently cite one or another fringie who falls in with their particular fairytale, or twist the words of reputable scientists and academicians to offer the appearance of support for their absurd proposition, the fact of the matter is the overwhelming majority of the scientific and academic communities unambiguously reject any semblence or itteration of any sort of supernatural causality.
Now, once again, demonstrate objectively that faith be differentiable from superstition.
