There can be no question that the relatively small distance Flew has traversed from atheism to theism or deism is infinitesimal in comparison to the great chasm that still lies between these and saving faith; but, it is nevertheless a step in the right direction, however small. It certainly is not a good argument or illustration for the evangelistic effectiveness or "soteriological sufficiency" of classical or evidentialist apologetics; but again, this is usually not what is claimed for apologetics or evidences. Their function (and I believe this is true of presuppositional apologetics as well) is basically pre-evangelistic, i.e., to "demolish arguments" and tear down intellectual strongholds to prepare the mind to receive and understand the truth claims of the gospel. Unless the Holy Spirit also opens their heart or spirit, the gospel, however intellectually compelling some of its claims may seem, will be rejected, and at best one will have only become an adherent of "demonic orthodoxy."

By far the most interesting thing about Flew's conversion is that the evidence for a Creator which he now finds so compelling and convincing is part of the very same "pseudo-science" (Intelligent Design Theory) that is currently banned from most public school textbooks and curricula, which raises serious challenges to the reigning Darwinian paradigm. As one Texas newspaper editor recently put it: "If the scientific data are compelling enough to cause an atheist academic of Antony Flew's reputation to recant much of his life's work, shouldn't Texas schoolchildren also be taught the controversy?"


Vicit Agnus Noster,
Brad J. Hammond