Antony Flew, the famous atheist whose recent acceptance of the existence of God was compared to Billy Graham renouncing Christianity, was interviewed here by Biola professor Gary R. Habermas.  Here are a few excerpts.

HABERMAS: Once you mentioned to me that your view might be called Deism. Do you think that would be a fair designation?
FLEW: Yes, absolutely right. What Deists, such as the Mr. Jefferson who drafted the American Declaration of Independence, believed was that, while reason, mainly in the form of arguments to design, assures us that there is a God, there is no room either for any supernatural revelation of that God or for any transactions between that God and individual human beings.
HABERMAS: Then, would you comment on your “openness” to the notion of theistic revelation?
FLEW: Yes. I am open to it, but not enthusiastic about potential revelation from God. On the positive side, for example, I am very much impressed with physicist Gerald Schroeder’s comments on Genesis 1. (10) That this biblical account might be scientifically accurate raises the possibility that it is revelation.

Flew would currently call himself a Deist--a believer in an impersonal God who does not give revelation.  However, he is not 100% closed to the idea of revelation.  Flew mentions the ideas of Gerald Schroeder, who, as explained in this article by Victor J Stenger of the University of Hawaii, proposed that each day in Genesis 1 corresponds with so many million or billion years, adding up to a grand total of 15.75 billion--a couple billion higher than some secular estimates of the universe.  So although Flew accepts Intelligent Design behind evolution, he still believes that science has given substantial evidence for an old earth.

As an aside, the Stenger article ridicules Schroeder's theory and indirectly calls Antony Flew "mathematically and scientifically illiterate" for accepting the idea that a deity was involved in Creation.  Stenger uses the same argument everyone has been using recently to criticize Michael Behe:  Just because it seems impossible that life formed doesn't mean it didn't, or that supernatural intervention is required.  Yes, Professor Stenger, but there comes a time when a theory becomes so scientifically unlikely that it is embarrassing to continue believing it.  Flew has recognized this.

(Stenger goes on to give proof for his view: "As we know from everyday experience and scientific observations, complex systems develop from simpler systems all the time in nature, with no high intelligence needed. A drop of water can freeze into an ice crystal. Winds can carve out great cathedrals in rock."  By the word "cathedrals" we assume he is not being literal.)

But I get off the subject.  Says Flew,

It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.

Asked about the problem of evil in light of his Deism, he responds,

Well, absent revelation, why should we perceive anything as objectively evil? The problem of evil is a problem only for Christians. For Muslims everything which human beings perceive as evil, just as much as everything we perceive as good, has to be obediently accepted as produced by the will of Allah.

I think Flew is right here.  Actually, I heard Ravi Zacharias say almost exactly the same thing last week at Moody Church.  To begin to resolve the problem of evil, I think we need to conform our ideas of good and evil to the LORD's ideas.  As Flew states, revelation is the only thing which can establish an objective definition of evil.
Flew goes on to compare Christianity with Islam, as I am doing, especially with relation each religion's sacred texts. Flew says,

Whereas St. Paul, who was the chief contributor to the New Testament, knew all the three relevant languages and obviously possessed a first class philosophical mind, the Prophet [Muhammad], though gifted in the arts of persuasion and clearly a considerable military leader, was both doubtfully literate and certainly ill-informed about the contents of the Old Testament and about several matters of which God, if not even the least informed of the Prophet’s contemporaries, must have been cognizant.
This raises the possibility of what my philosophical contemporaries in the heyday of Gilbert Ryle would have described as a knock-down falsification of Islam: something which is most certainly not possible in the case of Christianity. If I do eventually produce such a paper it will obviously have to be published anonymously.

Sometimes I wonder if I should post anonymously, too.
On the Bible:

The Bible is a work which someone who had not the slightest concern about the question of the truth or falsity of the Christian religion could read as people read the novels of the best novelists. It is an eminently readable book.

And may I throw in: "If you haven't read it, read it."
Flew does not believe in the resurrection of Christ but says the evidence for it is better than most other claimed miracles, including "run of the mill Roman Catholic miracles."  I like that.
Asked if he thought he might ever become a Christian:

I think it’s very unlikely, due to the problem of evil. . . But some things I am completely confident about. I would never regard Islam with anything but horror and fear because it is fundamentally committed to conquering the world for Islam. It was because the whole of Palestine was part of the land of Islam that Muslim Arab armies moved in to try to destroy Israel at birth, and why the struggle for the return of the still surviving refugees and their numerous descendents continue to this day.

It will never be possible for Flew to resolve the problem of evil in his mind until he believes in the work, person, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, Who demonstrates comprehensively that God is good.

 

"For goodness sake," says Antony Flew to wrap up, "Jesus is an enormously attractive charismatic figure, which the Prophet of Islam most emphatically is not."

It just needs an exclamation mark.
Check out the whole interview, it covers a lot of topics.