The questions:
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.
Schroeder is interesting but I am not sure a literalist view of the Bible can be reconciled with his perception of the 6 days of Creation.
Evidently so, you changed the words to suit yourself. I've already explained that what I wrote and what you wrote are not synonomous. No reason to rehash old ground. See above if you need to review.
What was your intended message, exactly, if it was not that?
It was exactly what I said. Flew claims that his 50 year study of the science has led him to believe in a deistic Creator. There's no argument there, its Flew's own words.
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.
This is garbage. Why don't you support the contention that I am "stuck on this Flew person being a theist." You need to read what I write and quit editorializing or fantasizing, one or the other.
However, now I'm not sure I understand the whoop-de-do, since your point evidently ISN'T that science proves theism.
Do you think it is possible that science can prove theism?
Schroeder is interesting but I am not sure a literalist view of the Bible can be reconciled with his perception of the 6 days of Creation.
Then you should probably read Schroeder.