You continue to simply disregard the facts. I gave you a quote from the article. Flews position is that his take on the science leads him to "believe" in a deistic God.
I don't really know why you're arguing that point, it is Flew's opinion. That you have a different one has no bearing on the matter.
> Flews position is that his take on the science leads him to "believe" in a deistic God.
This is what the article says: "By January 2003 Flew began considering arguments from the "intelligent design" movement and was on the verge of belief in God."
Since Creationism is manifestly NOT science (feel free to produce the requisite testable aspects of it), then by definition Flew is not being led to God via science. He may in fact be led to God by what he has been bamboozled into *thinking* is science, of course. Many people falsely belive that Creationism is scientific, just as many people belive that healing crystals, pyramid power and Ascended Masters from Atlantis are science-based. But believing does not make something so.