But it's clear to me that someone who is a deist cannot endorse creationism by any name, especially a deist who claimed to have relied upon reason and the light of scientific discovery to arrive at his conclusions.
It could be that the fate of addled thinking awaits most of us I guess.
These included new versions of the design argument, the rise of the anthropic argument, some arguments offered by the intelligent design movement, Richard Swinburne's work on the concept of God, and David Conway's work on the concept of wisdom.
Considerable debate continues to haunt the publication in 2007 of Flew's book There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.
In the end, we took the decision not to broadcast this interview.
On Sunday morning, when we consider the life and legacy of Antony Flew, I'll explain why.
The question is whether he should have changed his mind on the basis for the available evidence.
If a leading Christian apologist rejects belief in God in his later years, does that do any harm to the philosophical case for belief in God?
He did not believe that this "being" had any further agency in the universe, and he maintained his opposition to the vast majority of doctrinal positions adopted by the global faiths, such as belief in the after-life, or a divine being who actively cares for or loves the universe, or the resurrection of Christ, and argued for the idea of an "Aristotelian God".
He explained that he, like Socrates, had simply followed the evidence, and the new evidence from science and natural theology made it possible to rationally advance belief in an intelligent being who ordered the universe.