|
 On December 9, 2004, in one of his public
manifestos, this one on video, the medium preferred by fellow
"philosopher" bin Laden, 81-year-old British philosophy professor and
2001 Schlarbaum Winner, Antony Flew, formally recanted his life-long
atheism and championship of Evolution and acknowledged the idea of
some sort of design beyond it all, rather like, as he put it, the
"American Intelligent Design."
This was big news. It made the Wall Street
Journal and ABC News.
So another has flown the coop, this time an
especially plump and juicy bird, and such plumage! How plump? How
juicy? You probably never heard of him. But for the past 50 years he
has dominated the philosophical-atheistic-evolutionary aviary like Big
Bird has Sesame Street.
Just check "Antony Flew" on Google. Now he's
our eagle. Our pigeon, his erstwhile loyalists are saying.
A philosopher, is what he is.
Philosophers have proven no more consistent in
doctrine, nor dependable, nor useful, than politicians, ranging in
just the last two centuries from, as samples, C.S. Lewis, said to be
the 20th century's greatest Christian philosopher, to
Antony Flew, one of the century's greatest atheist philosophers (he
got his big break debating in the philosophy club Lewis started), to
Nietzsche whose philosophy inspired Nazism, to John Stuart Mill whose
Preference Utilitarianism "justifies" Nazis killing Jews if that
brings happiness to Nazis, to Peter Singer who, also by Preference
Utilitarianism, justifies homosexuality and everything else from
bestiality to necrophilia, if by mutual consent. By the way, Singer
is acclaimed, more frequently by those of evolutionary than
creationist bent, as the "world's most influential living
philosopher."
Confining his emanations to less flaky and more
cosmic matters, Flew cannot be thus hyped but is therefore all the
more credible. That credibility is enhanced rather than put in
question by his recanting what he once propounded. All philosophers
are always contradicting each other, why not themselves? It just
proves they are real philosophers. As the professor philosophically
asserts, philosophy must follow where logic and/or evidence lead, the
perception of which, yes, evolves. But he is a philosopher, not a
scientist, and is not Evolution a scientific field where only
scientists belong?
But look around you.
Who's touting Evo the loudest? Philosophers
mostly, at best. Also PBS documentarians, home town newspaper
columnists, and environmentalists of all feathers. Even blue-State
politicians, at least before November 4,'04. Philosophers and their
wannabes have squatted the Evo arena like pelicans a pier, or like
squawking UC Berkeley fledglings the campus in the 60s. No, they've
returned to their ancestral roost.
In antiquity, while science was but a gleam in
the philosophical eye, philosophy ruled. Likewise during the
Enlightenment which evicted religion from the scientific arena,
staged, acted, and directed by philosophers. Philosophy gave birth to
science and liberated it by the Enlightenment, retaining always the
privilege of speaking for science as authoritatively as religion ever
did.
So prof. Flew's advocacy of Evo through
philosophy was as legitimate as his rejection is now, and vice versa.
Likewise it is just as legitimate for Intelligent Design's advocates
to be degreed not only in the core sciences but also in philosophy,
especially the philosophy of science. Or, for that matter, law,
lawyers being philosophers gone public. Indeed, I.D. advocates are
all of these; check the web sites.
And why not M.D.s (like me), not immune to
ramifications, cosmic as well as fiscal, to the body wonderful? If
sundry species of odd birds are all cackling in the Evo coop, why not
in the I.D. dovecote? But post-Enlightenment theology foxes are not
allowed in either henhouse. If they want in they must doff their
clerical collars and habits and don academic jeans.
Yet prof. Flew, son of a Methodist minister,
argued atheism as loudly as evolution. That is legitimate. For
despite evolution's claim that defacto theology has nothing to do with
it, evolution and atheism are just as integrated and inseparable and
interdependent as Creationism and a designer or Creator. If one is
granted, the other must be, for both sides.
And it is legitimate, though ironic considering
Evo's proprietary claim on science, that prof. Flew was roused from
his roost not by cerebral rumination, like Singer, or by revelation,
like Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus, but by science -- not
fossilized science but living science: the overwhelming and compelling
complexity of DNA.
As in the Cold War days when a celebrity Russian
Olympic star or ballet dancer would defect to our side, or one of our
operatives pop up in the Kremlin, the henhouse trembles and the
chickens cluck. Everybody takes a thing like this personally. If
you are an Intelligent Designer you feel validated. If you are an
atheist evolutionary you feel betrayed, and even see ghosts and straw
men: "Christians should not see this as a victory of any sort"
(Parableman, posted by Philo December
17, 2004 03:56 PM).
There they go bringing religion into it again.
Flew's journey is a victory for intelligence, also for Intelligent
Design, that alone, just as the professor himself insists. He has not
flown back to the bosom of his father. I take him at his word, why
can't evolutionists?
Prof. Flew's flight is ruffling a lot of feathers
out there. But why the fuss? Me, I'm hardly surprised that anybody,
especially one possessed of such legendary smarts as Professor Flew,
would finally come to roost on the solid stratum of Intelligent
Design. What's so earth-shaking about somebody believing Intelligent
Design? Do Sumatrans not believe in tsunamis? When the 30'-high
res-ipsa-loquiturs come rolling in, believe it.
I've always tended to heed a thing speaking for
itself, not somebody speaking for it. I never asked my mom to buy me
The Breakfast of Champions simply because the box sported a picture of
Joe DiMaggio – I'm dating myself -- saying he eats it. Now that prof.
Flew's picture and logo are affixed (or close enough) to Intelligent
Design, it ought to appeal to consumers. If that's what it takes, I'm
glad for them.
This wise old owl is now I.D. banded. I.D. bird
watchers are adding him to their life list. I'm not saying such
trophies aren't something to crow about, or that collecting, stuffing,
and displaying them isn't sporting. It's just that crowing and
stuffing are not my personal sports. I'm not keeping score of
defections, or much else, for that matter. There will be defections
in the other direction. That won't bother me either.
To my legislatively oriented friends intent on
getting laws passed that rectify those already passed that keep
children from being told that Evo might not be so catechismally ex
cathedra after all and that Intelligent Design is a credible
alternative hypothesis, a personage of such stature will have to be a
powerful amicus curiae. If prof. Flew himself accepts Intelligent
Design, how could the Ohio school system not? I'm glad for that too.
But to me Intelligent Design isn't in court. The
case is long settled. And I'll confess I'm no more and no less
convinced of Intelligent Design now that prof. Flew is convinced than
when he wasn't. I fly in parallel with prof. Flew – both of us find
DNA unexplainable other than by intelligence – not in series. I
believe Intelligent Design with prof. Flew, not because of
him.
But despite my personal quirks, perhaps because
of them, to me has fallen the task of tendering Creation Digest's
official welcome to prof. Flew. Welcome, prof. Flew. But a toy
poodle hopping at and licking every stranger, I am not. I'm only the
Creation Digest curmudgeon, the lab cat, stretching, ambling over,
arching my back and nuzzling the new tweed pants-leg and purring.
We regret you were frisked so harshly at airport
security by your erstwhile friends, professor, and trust your flight
here wasn't too bumpy.
* Dr. Wesley Kime, a retired Ohio physician,
contributes regularly to Creation Digest as the "Creation Curmudgeon." |
Archives
