User talk:Irishsgb

Intelligent design
You have recently edited the Intelligent Design article, to include information on Antony Flew, suggesting that he is a proponent of ID. From the article:
 * In an another letter to Carrier of 29 December 2004 Flew went on to retract his statement "a deity or a 'super-intelligence' [is] the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature." "I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction." wrote Flew.

Flew has never made his actual beliefs known.
 * But in 2005, when God and Philosophy was republished by Prometheus Books, the new introduction failed to conclusively answer the question of Flew's beliefs.

-- Ec5618 17:40, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Irishsgb. I've been here a couple months and I'm probably on your side of the ID debate. One the things that will help you out at the ID page is to make sure you discuss changes you want to make on the talk page and then make them once there is consensus. It's a pretty turbulent article, and no one likes it when people just assert their changes. Drop me a line if you have any questions. David Bergan 20:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

RE:Flew +SciCom
Not really sure what you're lookin for. Flew is a notable (former) aithiest, but I am not compelled he's all that relevant to the ID article. I'm of the opinion that the ID article should be about the so called theory itself, and not overmuch about whos convinced by it and who is not. As for the scientific community, I think thats accurate and neutral. ID and especially its movement have gotten very poor reactions from scientists across the world. Several organizations have condemned them, and by a common read, the scientific community, the body of scientists as a whole, does not aprove or agree with ID.--Tznkai 04:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)