Here's what YOU said:
Anthony Flew has been led to theism by science. That is the the significance of one mans life long advocacy for atheism morphing into theism. He "followed the science" where it led him.
Here was my response:
Ah, so this is about science proving theism. Gotcha. What exactly was this science Flew found indicated the existence of God?
Did I misconstrue the point of your post above, where you said Flew was led to theism by science and followed the science? What was your intended message, exactly, if it was not that? I said "Gotcha," because I didn't know why you were so stuck on this Flew person being a theist, then I THOUGHT you'd explained it. However, now I'm not sure I understand the whoop-de-do, since your point evidently ISN'T that science proves theism.
I WILL read the article. Hopefully the author of THAT writing will be less insulting than you in explaining Flew's reasoning and what HE gets out of it.
Hope springs eternal.
BTW, repeating what we wrote simply clarifies that you jumped the gun. "Anthony Flew has been led to theism by science" is not analagous to "science proving theism".