Keith Devens .com

Counterpoint: http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369

Yes, it's Infidels, but it's still worth reading seeing as it's based on an interview with Flew

From the piece:

My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms.

The article you link says pretty much what the article I linked says. If your intention was to point out that Flew doesn't believe in God (i.e. the God of Christianity), but only a "First Cause" god, the god of "Aristotle or Spinoza", then you're right to point that out. I probably should have mentioned something along those lines in the main post. He's more along the lines of a Deist and has some affinity with the intelligent design movement -- he's certainly not a young earth creationist

Was that your point?

I still don't see the logic in "I don't believe Theory A, therefore it must be magic!" Furthermore, I don't see why a single god is acceptable to this guy, but not multiple gods.

Anyway, if you want a famous Christian who converted to atheism, you need look no further than Darwin himself .

In case there's any confusion, my point in posting this wasn't to support an argument for Christianity or belief in God. I was merely highlighting how his beliefs about evolution comport with my own.

Furthermore, I don't see why a single god is acceptable to this guy, but not multiple gods.

He probably doesn't care either way.

I still don't see the logic in "I don't believe Theory A, therefore it must be magic!"

I wouldn't put it that way. He believes that there is no "naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism", depending on random events, that makes sense, so he concludes that "intelligence must have been involved" in order to produce "the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed [for life]".

I had no point: I was just offering a counterpoint from another source, that's all.

Ok, I didn't see how that was a counterpoint - that's why I asked.

Because it comes from Infidels, an atheist site. After all, the word means a contrasting but parallel element, item, or theme.

And Merriam Webster has "opposite" as a synonym. The article you provided said the same thing as the other one, which is why I was trying to figure out what part you thought contrasted.