I saw an additional minor point of fact that contradicts the last argument from creationist tract posted at the start of this discussion. Anthony Flew, the professor mentioned in the creationist tract posted above was known in English philosophy departments as a advocate of atheism. Frankly, I have no idea of how he made his arguments, but I doubt that they were very original. He is not a scientist of any sort.
A few years ago, Flew was persuaded by some creationists he knew that there was no progress on the scientific study of the origin of life on earth, and that therefore some sort of intelligence that must have intervened. However, after Flew made his opinion known he was confronted with all the progress that had in fact been made. He subsequently admitted that he had never bothered to read the scientific studies in origin of life. He then retracted his statements regarding his so called "conversion."
Personally, I don't care one way or the other whether an aging British philosophy professor thinks that there is a non-human intelligence in the universe superior to human abilities. I read lots of science fiction too. There are even plenty of star trek episodes with "god like" superior beings. This same theme goes back to the fiction in the 1800s.
What is lame-brained is to think that Flew's
retracted "conversion" had any significance to anyone but himself. This argument by association was preceded with the silly claim that,
In July 2005 more than 400 scientists put their name to the following statement: They have voluntarily "out-ed" themselves, they have "come out of the closet", willing to declare openly what their consciences and scientific integrity have told them is true."
This is a reference to the creationist organization the "Discovery Institute." Their signature list is dominated by non-scientists such as dentists and engineers, and even the paltry number of scientists they can claim are not specialists in evolution, ecology, or developmental biology. In short, the DI list is as weak as their "theory of gawuddunit." In contrast, there are two other lists, the
Project Steve list, and
"The Clergy Letter Project." The latter is a strong statement supporting the basic principles of honest science education restricted to members of the Christian clergy. To date, the Clergy Letter Project has collected (22 July 2007) 10,734 signatures compared to the pathetic "scientific" supporters of creationism.
More fun is the "Project Steve" list of The Project Steve statement is clear and direct totally unlike the mealy mouthed whine used by the Discovery Institute to confuse the issues. The Steve list avers that;
"Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools."
Why is this significant? The Steve list is restricted to actual scientists with actual direct relevant experience. Oh, and they must be named "Steve" or its cognates. The Steve list is at 816 signers and has every living Nobel Prize winner named Steve.