But the fact is there’s a large and growing collection of scientific facts (and scientists themselves) that point more and more convincingly towards some kind of intelligence behind the universe.
No there isn't. There is no scientific fact that points towards intelligent design. My guess is he is using the anthropic principle as evidence but that is based on the idea that our life is the only life that counts and thus the fine tuning of our universe is the only one that counts. This is an unproven idea and doesn't discount a completely random event (that our universe parameters are completely random) nor a begging the question style arguement (the universe has life, thus the universe had to be designed for life)
And second, some of the most convincing evidence in favour of a God-made universe comes from former atheists who have changed their minds based on empirical data.
No it doesn't. For one, there is no huge population of atheist scientists that have changed their mind on empirical datat. For two, science is well renown for being wrong... in fact, it relies on 99 ideas being wrong such that the 1 idea that is right is strongly right. So there is no guarantee that even if this population exists (IF) that they are in the 1 idea that is right and not the 99 that are wrong.
Interestingly, if you believe that ATHEISM is a position of belief and not one of existence, you owe a great deal of thanks to Flew who came up with that concept.
Before that, atheism was a position of existence... as in gods don't exist. After him, it became a position of belief.... I don't claim that gods do or do not exist, but I don't believe in them . This paved the way for the modern acceptance of the Agnostic Atheist.
I personally find that position untenable as I see no difference between not believing in god(s) and claiming their aren't any. Perhaps this dissonance is real with people that embody Flew's idea and perhaps a reason why he is more prone to "watchmaker" arguments since his position on gods is based on belief (which is "squishy" ) and not existence (which is not).
Anthony Flew was an Athiest for 50 odd years, he died in 2010 in his mid eighties resident in a home for people suffering extreme dementia where he had been resident for almost a decade.
So this guy's arguement is that an eminent philosopher in his dotage turned to god and that proves everything else he ever said while still sane was irrelevant.
What a convincing arguement.
I think that you are posting drivel from a site written by a carpenter and mason worker from his home in Canada, which speaks volumes of the relevance of this site. Flew did not convince me at all in his book because his arguments were flimsy, mostly philosophic rather than scientific.
Flew was a famous British philosopher of religion. As I understand him, his long-term view was that there is no evidence whatever that would tend either to verify or falsify the claim that God exists, so it is a meaningless claim. However, as science progressed he came to believe that it did provide evidence that would tend to verify it (along the lines of special design). But I don't think this was the God of popular religion.