"Theists would do well to drop the example of Flew. Because his willfully sloppy scholarship
can only help to make belief look ridiculous."
Hmmm...no mention of the lengthy interview with Prof. Gary Habermas in this article.
And no explicit and specific refutation of that interview.
Well, in the interest of full and unbridled access to source materials, here's the link to
Flew's interview with Habermas
http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/
(downloadable .pdf also linked on that page)
WARNING: the interview will be unsettling to folks that like Islam and The World Council of Churches).
The interview was also mentioned today on Charles Colson's "Breakpoint Commentary" at
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1318594/posts
I'll post the URL for this thread at the thread listed just above.
nonetheless he had concluded that theism was true. In Flews words, he simply had to go where the evidence leads.
HABERMAS: You very kindly noted that our debates and discussions had influenced your move in the direction of theism. (11) You mentioned that this initial influence contributed in part to your comment that naturalistic efforts have never succeeded in producing a plausible conjecture as to how any of these complex molecules might have evolved from simple entities.
FLEW: I think that the most impressive arguments for Gods existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries. Ive never been much impressed by the kalam cosmological argument, and I dont think it has gotten any stronger recently. However, I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.