Antony Flew, Richard Dawkins and Gerald Schroeder on Atheism and Theism
As the series of my commentary debate with “The Recliner Commentaries” grew up, I brought it on here. It discusses Antony Flew, Richards Dawkins and Gerald Schroeder’s Atheism and Theism views:
Note: I’m not here advocating Atheism or Theism or someone’s opinions, but try to find some truth beyond Science and Religion conflicts! I advocate the truth; if you think that I’m wrong, then jump in and make your discussions! Its a long post, then I suggest you an offline read!
“The Recliner Commentaries” wrote a quote by Antony Flew from Flew’s new book, “There is a God; How the world’s most notorious atheist changed his mind”, that is not the case. But I posted a comment about Flew’s turning from atheism to some beliefs (maybe theism):
“We know that Flew changed his ideology from not being believer (atheist) to being to some extent believer that he doesn’t really know what it is himself! He might have been fanaticized in the complexity of genetic codes and its interesting world! But we should be more aware! Let’s see what’s happening!
Everyone would be amazed of the complexity of the hardware that has been used in computers! To whom that they know nothing about electricity, such as gardeners, barbers, nurses, biologists and philosophers, it is every complex and interesting; but what about an electronic engineer?
Have you ever wondered about a heart surgery? Or some brain surgeries that we don’t understand what the surgeons are doing? Aren’t surgeons some kind of gods to us? Haven’t you been interested in the leader who sits Apollo’s on moon by some devices from earth?And this is the same as a biologic subject that is common to biologists and amazing for engineers and philosophers! Isn’t it?So some things are obvious in the eye of their professionals and amazing, fantastic and complex to another! Isn’t it?
It is the case of Dawkins as an evolutionary biologist and Flew as a philosopher!When Flew says that I’m interested in complexity of DNA or something like this, his reasons are of not knowing DNA, its complexity and its origin; nothing else!Let’s see the truth!
We are all humans coming in this planet and die in this planet! We do not know about after death and it would be a tragedy for us to be finished in this way! Everyone wants to be! Being continuous! Can you suppose to not being here tomorrow? It is something sad that makes everyone to convince himself that there is another life and maybe some creator that rules the unseeing world!!!I’m not here to say that Flew feared of dying with a tragic end, but MAYBE when he felt confused about DNA or something like this, he turned to a believer easier and doesn’t want to listen to biologists such as Dawkins! Maybe!Even in this case, he is a Pantheist, not a believer in God, but in science! And he mentions that there are some orders or arrangements that are complex!
By the way his approach wasn’t very intelligent to me! I’d appreciated a better one; it didn’t satisfy me!I’ll write a post about this on my weblog and please inform me of your probable answer to mine!”
Then he wrote me back:
“Since you seem to dismiss Antony Flew because he is a philosopher rather than a scientist, let’s discuss a scientist.
Gerald Schroeder is a scientist with a Ph.D. from MIT–one of our countries most prestigious scientific institutions. Here are some execrpts from one of his books (note: he’s not writing here for scientists but so average readers can understand):
“When a specific protein is needed by a cell, a chemical messenger is sent from the outer cell, through a pore in the nuclear membrane, into the nucleus. How the messenger knows to go to the nucleus remains a mystery. This messenger finds the needed chromosome (one of the twenty-three pairs), locks onto that chromosome, and moves along, nucleotide by nucleotide, until it comes to the specific sequence of bases that marks the beginning of the gene that codes for the desired protein.
At this stage, the signaling molecule changes shape, and in doing so allows—or causes—and enzyme called DNA-dependent RNA polymerase (I’ll call it RNA-P) to join the action.
The RNA-P opens the helix, reads each nucleotide base, selects the correct complementary base from among the four types floating in the intracellular slurry, concurrently selects…the molecules that make up the spine of the lengthening strand of mRNA being manufactured, trailing behind the RNA-P, joins the just-selected base to the spine, takes the portion of DNA that has just been read and reseals it to the parallel DNA strand which it was separated, opens the portion of DNA to be read next, reads it, and continues the juggling act til it reaches a coded stop order…And RNA-P does this manufacturing at fifty bases a second…Keep in mind,
this entire sequence is performed by molecules reading molecules, molecules selecting molecules, molecules walking along with other molecules.
Don’t project too much brain power or body power into this system. It’s not little people in there. It’s simply molecules that somehow seem to act like little knowledgeable people, as if they had a wisdom of their own. Which they do (192-199).
This is only one small part of a much more complicated process thattakes place in what was once called the “simple cell.” At one time scientists used to imagine that, given enough time (billions of years) simple cells couldevolve by themselves purely by chance or natural selection. The kicker here is that “it all developed so very rapidly, almost simultaneously with theappearance of liquid water on earth. We have absolutely phenomenal complexity,not after billions of years of evolution, but at the very beginning of the entire process (193-194)!”
End Schroeder quote.
Scientists once thought in terms of the evolution of a simple cell. Now we know that there is no such thing as a simple cell. The very simplest cell known to man–the eubacteria, Mycoplasma genitalium, contains 580,000 nucleotid pairs per haploid genome. It if far more complex than the computers you mentioned. But computers were designed and assembled by intelligent designers. You apparently want me to believe that incredibly complex organiaisms like Mycoplasma genitalium just somehow evolved by chance or natural selection?
Flew, Schroeder and many others are now pointing out that this is scientifically impossible.
It is only the blind faith of atheism, the dogma of Darwinism, and the self-appointed high priests of the scientific establishment that keeps people hanging on to the myth of naturalism.”
And here are my Answers to his:
Dear Dennis:
I think we should dismiss Flew’s philosophical views since his life was full of atheism arguments and proves, not for proving theism!
It seems the greatest task that Gerald Schroeder has done in his life was his PhD in MIT! Since I haven’t found anymore information about him on net! And he has also written some books defying Old Testament god! That’s great because I haven’t written a book!
But beside his valuable tasks, when he says and finds the Six Days of Creation that has been mentioned by Yahweh, the main Schroeder’s idea for matching science with religion, first of all we should have it in mind that science has proven that the order of days that are told in Bible is absolutely false!
Second, there was not just a BigBang, but BigBangs! As you may know in the case of BigBang, all the universe matter condenses, then bangs, distributes and again condensational period comes! So it seems that applying just six days (who has told that day equals period; but we assume these words are the same for the sake of God) to creation process while unordered is again false! Maybe god has forgotten what before the last BigBang was or he (or she) might not even knew the other BigBangs before creation of earth and human being on it!
As a scientist, Gerald Schroeder might knows this rule! But he dismisses and says I matched the universe steps to Yahweh tales! (if we assume that these tales are accurate!)
Third, when he is about to find a solution of matching Biblical tales to science, its more accurate to explain these tales by Erich Von Daeniken, the writer of “Chariots of Gods”, or maybe Alan Alford with his book, “Gods of New millennium”! These theories of alien gods haven’t been rejected yet and ease Schroeder’s toils of matching Biblical tales to science!
Fourth, there are vast of creational scientists that have better arguments than Schroeder’s! Again that mistake is at work: Schroeder seems to be wondered and confused by the complex world of DNA, as he can’t truly understand it, biology and Natural Selection! It is obvious from the way of his approaches to cellular science!
Fifth, Schroeder’s reason as you said isn’t scientific and as I say is not original and some irony; and this way of writing makes no light on this debate and isn’t helpful!
Sixth, as we talked about Antony Flew and I told that he don’t know what is going on about DNA and its complexity, for showing you his confesses about not well knowing science, I refer to some of his quotes from “The Turning of an Atheist” article:
“In his letter of Jan. 2, 2005, Flew says that if the “so confident, atheist polemicist Richard Dawkins” tells him that Schroeder is wrong, he will admit that Schroeder is wrong. But he assumes that Dawkins accepts Schroeder’s arguments, since Dawkins “made no reference to your article.” It’s truly odd: Flew says he believes that since Dawkins failed to cite the graduate student Richard Carrier attacking Schroeder, then Schroeder’s scholarship is likely sound. In other words, if Flew was misled, he can blame Dawkins, who holds an Oxford professorship in the “public understanding of science” yet failed to inform his public that Schroeder was a crank. Nonetheless, Flew promises Carrier, he is prepared to reject Schroeder. Flew once believed that Genesis might be scientifically accurate, but “as it is not, that’s that. I am rather sorry.”
Again it seems that Flew isn’t into Schroeder’s claims and he changes his mind and belief by a blowing wind!
It seems that Dawkins wasn’t able to answer Schroeder here; but actually he has answered these creationists in his books abundantly! Richard Dawkins book, “Climbing Mount Improbable” is a great explanation to these wondered-of-life-complexity creationists, that I offer you to read!
And finally as you used some of Schroeder’s quotes, I do the same from Richard Dawkins last book “God Delusion” to explain Schroeder being fault:
“The process by which plants, whether tiny pimpernels or massive wellingtonias, acquire the energy to build themselves is photosynthesis. Watchtower again: ‘ “There are about eventy separate chemical reactions involved in photosynthesis,” one biologist said. “It is truly a miraculous event.” Green plants have been called nature’s “factories” – beautiful, quiet, nonpolluting, producing oxygen, recycling water and feeding the world. Did they just happen by chance? Is that truly believable?’ No, it is not believable … Creationist ‘logic’ is always the same. Some natural phenomenon is too statistically improbable, too complex, too beautiful, too awe inspiring to have come into existence by chance. Design is the only alternative to chance that the authors can imagine. Therefore a designer must have done it. And science’s answer to this faulty logic is also always the same. Design is not the only alternative to chance. Natural selection is a better alternative. Indeed, design is not a real alternative at all because it raises an even bigger problem than it solves: who designed the designer? Chance and design both fail as solutions to the problem of statistical improbability, because one of them is the problem, and the other one regresses to it. Natural selection is a real solution. It is the only workable solution that has ever been suggested. And it is not only a workable solution; it is a solution of stunning elegance and power.
What is it that makes natural selection succeed as a solution to the problem of improbability, where chance and design both fail at the starting gate? The answer is that natural selection is a cumulative process, which breaks the problem of improbability up into small pieces. Each of the small pieces is slightly improbable, but not prohibitively so. When large numbers of these slightly improbable events are stacked up in series, the end product of the accumulation is very very improbable indeed, improbable enough to be far beyond the reach of chance. It is these end products that form the subjects of the creationist’s wearisomely recycled argument. The creationist completely misses the point, because he … insists on treating the genesis of statistical improbability as a single, one-off event. He doesn’t understand the power of accumulation.” (120-121)
“In Climbing Mount Improbable, I expressed the point in a parable. One side of the mountain is a sheer cliff, impossible to climb, but on the other side is a gentle slope to the summit. On the summit sits a complex device such as an eye or a bacterial flagellar motor. The absurd notion that such complexity could spontaneously self-assemble is symbolized by leaping from the foot of the cliff to the top in one bound. Evolution, by contrast, goes around the back of the mountain and creeps up the gentle slope to the summit: easy!” (121-122)
In his books, he gives very creative examples about the gradual Natural Selection that creationist should pay attention to.
“The creationists are right that, if genuinely irreducible complexity could be properly demonstrated, it would wreck Darwin’s theory.
Darwin himself said as much: ‘If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.’ Darwin could find no such case, and nor has anybody since Darwin’s time, despite strenuous, indeed desperate, efforts. Many candidates for this holy grail of creationism have been proposed. None has stood up to analysis.
In any case, even though genuinely irreducible complexity would wreck Darwin’s theory if it were ever found, who is to say that it wouldn’t wreck the intelligent design theory as well? Indeed, it already has wrecked the intelligent design theory, for, as I keep saying and will say again, however little we know about God, the one thing we can be sure of is that he would have to be very very complex and presumably irreducibly so!” (125)
End Dawkins quote.
Flew should read these lines to figure out that Schroeder is again one of that fanaticized scientists and is WRONG and is a crank!
Ok, if we assume that god has created the complex universe (in six days) as we, the intelligent and complex-minded creatures did computers, and god created complex and intelligent universes with complex and intelligent human beings in it (we assume as you said, every complex and intelligent being needs a creative and intelligent designer), then which complex and intelligent entity did create complex and intelligent God? And you apparently want me to believe that incredibly complex designer like God just somehow evolved by chance? Doesn’t he need more complex designer?
I don’t know why Schroeder and other creationists can’t see much deeper in the Natural Selection and Darwinism! Just try it for the sake of bringing good reasons!
p.s. I’m ready for any discussion and discussion makes me happy 
And read more here:
ISSR Statement on the Concept of ‘Intelligent Design’
Not a very Bigbang about Genesis
Flew, Schroeder, Varghese: What a company!
Join the Conversation
THE NEW DISCIPLINE!
Things will never be the same in academia after this.
There is a new discipline on the scene: physical science, the old science of cause and effect.
Against the backdrop of a nation embroiled in debate and legal battles over whether creationism or evolution, or both, should be taught in the classroom, The Quest for Right proclaims a
DAY OF VICTORY!
The Quest for Right, a series of seven textbooks designed for the public schools, represents the ultimate marriage between an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences. As a result, the several volumes have accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between those who desire a return to physical science in the classroom and those who embrace the theory of evolution. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena which will ultimately replace the unprofitable Darwinian view.
The backbone of Darwinism is not biological evolution per se, but electronic interpretation, the tenet that all physical, chemical, and biological processes result from a change in the electron structure of the atom which, in turn, may be deciphered through the orderly application of mathematics, as outlined in quantum mechanics. A few of the supporting theories are: degrading stars, neutron stars, black holes, extraterrestrial water, antimatter, the absolute dating systems, and the big bang, the explosion of a singularity infinitely smaller than the dot of an “i” from which space, time, and the massive stellar bodies supposedly sprang into being.
The philosophy rejects any divine intervention. Therefore, let the philosophy of Darwinism be judged on these specifics: electron interpretation and quantum mechanics. Conversely, the view that God is both responsible for and rules all the phenomena of the universe will stand or fall when the facts are applied. The view will not hinge on faith alone, but will be tested by the weightier principle of verifiable truths – the new discipline.
The Quest for Right is not only better at explaining natural phenomena, but also may be verified through testing. As a result, the material in the several volumes will not violate the so-called constitutional separation of church and state. Physical science, the old science of cause and effect, will have a long-term sustainability, replacing irresponsible doctrines based on whim. Teachers and students will rejoice in the simplicity of earthly phenomena when entertained by the new discipline. You will not want to miss the adventure of a lifetime that awaits you in Volume 1 of The Quest for Right, by C. David Parsons.
Visit the official website for additional information: http://questforright.com/
“A book that will change the world.” – Wayne Lin, Editor, Tate Publishing LLC
Just wanted to say that this was an enjoyable and thought-provoking article to read! Thanks a lot for posting it.
It is unfair to discuss Flew. As unfair as it is for those who now abuse and exploit Flew’s infirmity and age.
Be careful about adopting western science without question. The West is Christian and influenced by Christian monotheism. Look to our own roots as much as the west. The Muslim world was once a leader in science and contributed substantially to true scientific knowledge.
Dawkins maybe an evolutionary biologist but he is not a Darwinian. Dawkins is as geneticist (The Selfish Gene) which stems from Ethology (Konrad Lorenz – imprinting – used by the national socialist atheism of Hitler to justify ethnic cleansing of Jews and gypsies) and is potentially neo-racist – people are born to be as determined by their genes. Genetic determinism is a pseudo-scientific exposition of God. So is the concept of Intelligence, which stems from the Spanish Christian concept of Blue Blood – used to preserve the white Christian aristocratic supremacy over the Moors. Look at Sir Cyril Burt, the father of ‘scientific intelligence’ and knighted by British aristocracy for providing ‘scientific evidence’ for their privileged position but since shown to have been a fraud.
Religion is behavior – best explained by the behavioral sciences including anthropology, social and behavioral science – especially B.F.Skinner – the superstition experiment. The term psychology (-ology – study of the psyche)is pseudo-science as witnessed by Sigmund Freud, the charlatan who reinvented the Christian tripartite soul – Id (The son), ego (the man) and super ego (the parent or god – See Eric Berne – Sex and Human loving and Games People Play.
Belief is universal because of the human condition. Awareness, not only of death but extinction. Religion is avoidance behavior of that awful reality. To deny anyone that escape is cruel. You give the prime example at present – that of Flew. Flew is now an old man facing that awful reality and losing unawareness of where he is. Flew did not write that book. It was written by reactionary Christians so they could trumpet a convert. That is an abuse.
You may claim that bing bang is part of a cycle of big bangs, but science cannot prove that and probably never will. Even Einstein said that claiming there was no beginning was his biggest scientific mistake. That reality leaves open the possibility of a beginning and therefore a creator. As Hawkins (A Brief History of Time) said “Now we can see the mind of God”. If anyone has a right to believe in a better life after death is must be Hawkins. Yet Hawkins bravely remains an atheist.
We cannot deny the existence of god/s, so we should learn to respect other’s right to believe. Nor should we allow the carpet baggers of personal belief – organized religion – to take over our personal beliefs, whatever they are. That was the lesson of the Protestant Reformation especially Calvin.
Respect – fully yours
Jack
Pingback: » Flew, Dawkins, Schroeder
Dude!
All you atheists are crying your eyes out because the “Head-Honcho, Big-Guy, Leader of the Pack” for so many years, has jumped ship.
Get over it!
He was wrong!
That means all that crap you bought into was crap and YOU were ALSO wrong!
How funny!
You were all “behind him” all those years….. supporting him & his “ideas”. You spouted his arguments word for word!!!
BUT….
The Teacher went & pulled the proverbial rug out from under his students!!!
I guess when you’re wrong, you’re just wrong.
Creationists misrepresent the biblical account of creation. The bible is not saying that the earth and all life upon it was created in 6 literal 24 hour days. The Genesis account was written in hebrew. The hebrew word “day” simply means a period of time. For example we may say, “in my grandfathers day”. Are we to conclude from this statement that the grandfather lived for just 24 hours, just 1 day? Likewise, Genesis chap 2 verse 4 combines all six previous meantioned periods of creation and terms them “the day” that God created the heavens and the earth.
The Genesis account opens with the simple, powerful statement: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) Bible scholars agree that this verse describes an action separate from the creative days recounted from verse 3 onward. The implication is profound. According to the Bible’s opening statement, the universe, including our planet Earth, was in existence for an indefinite time before the creative days began.
As Genesis 1:1 shows the earth and the universe was created “in the beginning” thus existing long before those creative periods were engaged by God in order to turn the already billions of years old planet into one capable of sustaining life.
There is no controversy between the genesis account and established scientific fact.
For further information see http://www.jw-media.org/contact.htm for contact details
#6: The idea that atheists have a head honcho is absurd. Most atheists don’t even spend much time thinking about atheism. Antony Flew was a pretty well-known analytic philosopher who wrote some stuff defending atheism. That’s all. Now he inclines towards some sort of nonreligious deism because (embarrassingly) he’s fallen for really bad pseudoscience.
#4: Your slander of Dawkins—affiliating him with racism—is completely baseless. Dawkins may be stubborn and occasionally a bit rude, but he is an extremely well-respected scientific writer who has also made some serious contributions to biology. He has zero ties to racism.
Western science and philosophy has abandoned design arguments in the wake of Hume and Darwin. Since then, no proof of a cosmic designer has ever gained any serious scientific credibility.
The problem for atheists is the Gerald Schroeder has provided a credible argument for the Biblical Scriptures being scientifically accurate. He has made it that much harder for atheists to debunk the Biblical account, obviously something atheists despise. They’ve debunked the Young Earth Creationist view, but now have to contend with Schroeder’s view, the Old Universe view, which I agree with too. Atheists will now have to debunk the Hebrew Scriptures rather than English versions of it. Good luck, it ain’t happening.
Atheists fear responsibility, in order to get rid of the threat of Hell below them they have to discredit God with the same stone, that means abandoning Heaven above them too.
Matthew: “Atheists will now have to debunk the Hebrew Scriptures rather than English versions of it. Good luck, it ain’t happening.”
Hebrew Scriptures is product by human beings.
Matthew: “Atheists fear responsibility, in order to get rid of the threat of Hell below them they have to discredit God with the same stone, that means abandoning Heaven above them too.”
Some people is stupid.
Pingback: آنتونی فلو، ریچارد داوکینز و جرالد شرودر: خداناباوری و خداباوری (قسمت ا