A few more quibbles here.

"Leading atheist?" People know about Richard Dawkins. (Personally I can't stand him.) Most had never heard of Mr. Flew until this book was promoted by fundamentalists. Hmmmm.

And about his (or whoever's) observations and conclusions. Not very rational; in effect, many of them reflect the logical fallacy of the argument from incredulity: "I can't believe such a thing could be, so therefore it can't be." People used to fear lightning, thunder and eclipses until they understood what they were. They were attributed to the gods. Arguing for creation is nothing different really. I'm not saying that everything can be boiled down to what can concretely be shown and proved by known scientific methods, but I also think that nature and natural phenomena deserve more consideration than simply, "God did it."

Back to being rational. If I said, "It is raining outside. My dinner tastes good," then that is certainly not irrational, but it is a non-sequitur. If I were trying to convince you that I was eating a delicious meal, and I tried to use the fact that it is raining outside as proof, then you would rightly consider the argument illogical.

In the same way, "the fact that nature obeys rational and ordered laws, the fact that we are intelligently organised and purpose-driven beings, and the very existence of nature itself," (ignoring that the first two are open to subjective interpretation) and "the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence" are non-sequiturs. It isn't necessarily irrational to put them together in the same paragraph, but to imply that the first three somehow imply the last is illogical. The last is a statement that is logically independent of the first three.

Why does nature have to imply a creationist god anyway? I personally believe in the transcendent, I believe in chi, and that there are other things at work of which we know little -- but these things do not point me toward a god who created everything either.

At any rate, "Flew's" book does not advocate a young earth and I don't see an indication that it says anything contrary to evolution. The approach of this book is largely deistic, which is hardly an ideology espoused by any of the creationists here.