Has science buried God? Er, no. - Rated 
There are at least three analogies relevant to the philosophy of science at the beginning of the book which Dr. Lennox has been using in talks for years. I know, because I was at one of them in Oxford in 2003. On that day he had been given half an hour to burn through all his material, so he spoke at breakneck speed and barely had time to catch breath. There's something of that vibe about this book, too. Over these 179 pages of fine print, Lennox seems to have been determined to cover as much ground as possible, which makes for either an exhilarating or an infuriating read, depending on the disposition of the reader. I loved it.
One immense positive of the book is that it clears up a whole mass of confusions over issues relating to the question in the title. For instance, he points out that to see this big argument as one between science and religion is to commit a category error: the argument is between two worldviews: naturalism and theism*. Briefly, the naturalist sees the universe as a closed and self-sufficient system, while the theist sees the universe as caused by, ontologically dependent on and liable to inference from God. He also argues that the question "Is intelligent design science?" is misplaced - what we should be asking is "Is there scientific evidence for intelligent design?" (taken pan-scientifically). He clearly thinks there is, and goes on to explain way.
And so the rest of the book consists of a series of expositions and defences of teleological arguments. In all this it is quite clear where Lennox's expert knowledge lies, that is, in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science. During the first couple of chapters dealing with scientific methodology, worldview construction and inferences Lennox is clearly in his element, but this authoritative tone rather drops off in chapters 5-7 ("Designer universe?", "Designer biosphere?" and "The origin of life") as he relies heavily on quotations. Now, these are well-chosen quotations, and the arguments he constructs with them are cogent, but I was left longing for a return to the assurance of the first few chapters.
That return duly comes, as the discussion turns to information theory and hence Mathematics. Now, Lennox has been concerned on numerous occasions throughout the book to anticipate and rebut the objection that he's arguing for a "God of the gaps", insisting that abduction is a valid method of inference in science and that we make inferences to intelligence all the time. However, it's when he turns to treating DNA in information-theoretical terms that these ideas are really fleshed out. Noting that in pure mathematics "If a conjecture [...] has been thought about for many years and all attempts to prove it true have failed, then, though mathematicians will not necessarily give up trying to prove it true, they may also mount an attempt to see if it is provably false", he spends about a chapter and a half arguing for a "law of energy conservation", to the effect that "no molecular device is capable of generating any information that does not either belong to its input or its own informational structure". He also takes a swipe at Dawkins' infamous "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" while he's at it.
Furthermore, if information is conserved in this way, then it is most likely more fundamental than matter. And information implies intelligence. This is the argument with which Lennox closes: "In the beginning was the word...". This is a popular level book, it's an overview and, as I said at the start, the pace of it will not be to everyone's liking. But for what it is, it is very good book indeed, and comes recommended.
* Lennox doesn't intend for these two worldviews to be taken as exhausting all the possibilities; it's just that these are the two most obviously and publicly in conflict at the moment.
A Scientific and Philosophical Defence of Rational Faith - Rated 
Possibly the best thing about this book is the foundation from which it approaches the current debate. Lennox identifies the real confrontation as not being Science vs. Christianity (a fundamental category mistake), but as Materialistic Naturalism vs. Christian Theism. Lennox provides some great evidence for those who actually want to think for themselves about the direction in which science points.
In the opening chapters Lennox surveys the leading theories in cosmology and physics to show that on the macro scale our universe shouts "design" much louder than "random chance". The fact of a beginning to all things, the fine tuning of many independent constants, the beauty of mathematical formulae and many other pieces of evidence are amassed against the hypothesis of naturalistic materialism. The conclusion that an intelligent mind is behind the universe is seen at least to be a plausible, rational explanation.
Lennox then sails in to the stormy waters of Biology and Biochemistry to see what the unfolding world of DNA and chemical microstructures has to say to us. He draws on his vast knowledge of mathematics and information theory to shows the incredible implausibility of the first mutating self-replicator arising by purely by chance. He shows that whilst random mutation and natural selection can certainly carry some weight, they crumple under the full force of atheism which demands they be the full explanation for all the specified complexity in the world.
In part this book is a refutation of various writings of Richard Dawkins (both are lecturers at Oxford University), but it goes far beyond that. It shines light on the poor philosophy that lurks in the shadows of the recent New Atheist writings. It deals in broad terms with the limits of science and the epistemological ignorance of those who insist, with Bertrand Russell, that the only source of knowledge is scientific knowledge.
Lennox also spends a long time identifying and avoiding a "God of the gaps" approach to Christian apologetics. His objection to this form of lazy intellectualism comes across loud and clear. Lennox highlights the "bad gaps" that we don't know the answer to because science hasn't advance well enough and refuses to simply posit "God did it" as the explanation. But he also shows a number of "good gaps" where atheistic materialism fails because of what we know, not what we don't know. Lennox also highlights the ironic "evolution of the gaps" dogma of those committed to a naturalistic worldview who meet any deficiency in our current understanding with the creedal cry of "evolution did it"!
In summary, I know of no better contribution to the atheism / theism debate than this book. It will provide a great resource for those wishing to defend Theism. And it will be a challenge to those who can sufficiently divorce themselves from their atheistic presuppositions to objectively evaluate the evidence.
Absolutely amazing - Rated
This is definitely the best book i've read on the topic of atheism vs theism and the relationship of science between the two.
Dr John Lennox(who teaches philosophy of science and also mathematics at Oxford University) also dissects(very well) the likes of the fanatics such as Richard Dawkins and Peter Atkins and really takes them out using highly logical and scientific methods.
He deals with issues such scientism(the belief that whatever science explains is correct and all other wrong) and logical positivism in very logical and understandable ways(for me).
Also he discusses the implications of mathematics in the search for God and about the origin of life and DNA and evolution which are very interesting and thought-provoking read. He shows that evolution does not contradict the belief in God and that its only the fanatic and dogma minded atheists who think it does.
Definitely recommended for all theists and atheists alike and i hope that this book encourages more dialogue and further refutation of the atheists.
Excellent of its type, but ... - Rated
This is a well written contribution to the debate over evolution, the origin of life, and intelligent design. Much of the book is, inevitably, dedicated to attempts to demolish arguments in favour of a rational and scientific explanation for life, the universe and everything. In particular, Lennox has Richard Dawkins in his sights, and manages to throw some convincing doubt at some of the estimable professor's more speculative theories (which Dawkins himself would agree are speculative - he doesn't claim to know the answer to everything).
Unfortunately what Lennox does not do is come up with any genuinely plausible alternative. We are all agreed that the building blocks of life - cells, DNA - are staggeringly complex and the triggers for their existence remain unexplained. The author is firmly convinced that there are good grounds for believing that intelligent design lies behind the apparently madly improbable existence of life.
Unfortunately, despite much huffing and puffing, Lennox's arguments for this do not move beyond the usual ones:
a) life is really complex and looks so clever that surely it was designed (and here's some really complex probability stuff to 'prove' it);
b) the increasing convergence of information theory and evolutionary biology and cosmology point to more and more order and apparent thought in the building blocks of life (see point a!);
c) Dawkins' speculation is wrong, therefore it must be design;
d) lots of scientists allegedly agree with him;
e) and towards the end, he hints loudly that, well, the Bible says so. In the beginning was The Word.
Well actually in the beginning were who knows how many Hebrew folk tales and oral traditions that were subjected to a game of Chinese Whispers that lasted for centuries before umpteen competing versions were written down at n generations from their emergence, but hey, who's arguing. As with all of these types of book that I have read, non-Christian faith systems do not really get a look in, and are subtly dismissed. That sounds like having your cake and eating it to me: if you believe in intelligent design, I think you'd better be prepared for it being one of the other side being correct, not necessarily your team! I've yet to see one of these people seriously consider that "their" book might actually be wrong, even if the premise is correct.
Lennox refuses to contemplate that perhaps the reason we don't understand yet is that we have lots more to discover. That there may be other factors involved, factors explicable without the aid of superstition, that we are not aware of yet, that make the triggering of life considerably more probable than we currently imagine. This is where Dawkins' speculations are rooted.
Again, we come back to science having done a very good job, for several centuries now, of coming up with answers and reasons that can be proved by observation, experiment or discovery, that time and time again blow God(s) out of the water.
Lennox likes to wheel out Paley and irreducible complexity, the favourite refuge of the creationist. One of his examples is, inevitably, the flagellar motor - even Lennox he has had to give up on the eye - and incredibly he favourably quotes the surely completely discredited Michael Behe in this area, which sorely undermines his case before he even starts. Imagine if Lennox had written this book 200 years ago; what "irreducibly complex" organisms/mechanisms would he have wheeled out then? How many of them have since been easily explained by science without the need for "design"?
Now imagine he writes this book in 200 years time: will he have anything left to write about?
He utilises many subtle and clever analogies to undermine science's general conviction that life will be explained by theory and not God, but in the end the best that he can do is cast doubt on ideas. After that Lennox can then only come up with arguments for design that are every bit as speculative and open to critical assault as the other ideas he has undermined. Unfortunately for him, momentum is on the side of science: there is clear evidence for evolution and related theories; there is none - zero, nothing, nowt - for God. Not one scrap of solid evidence that can be subjected to meaningful analysis or experimentation.
When someone comes up with a fossil that proves a miracle or a revelation, then I might be convinced. In contrast, on the other tab of my browser right now is a story regarding yet another transitional fossil being discovered.
In summary, an excellent read, with some very interesting (and complex) ideas, that convincingly undermines some wilder scientific speculation, but does not provide an alternative that will work with anything other than faith. A very learned and game attempt to sell intelligent design.
Chance or Providence? - Rated 
At the heart of this wide ranging debate/clash between science and religion is a very simple dilemma: does nature show evidence of design (and therefore a supernatural designer, aka God) or a random process of endless adaptation and tinkering. The position one takes on this depends on the interpretation of evidence, which in turn depends on the mentality of the interpreter. It is therefore important to know that this author is a mathematician.
At least since the time of Archimedes, mathematicians have been prone to see intelligence and design imprinted in the universe. There is a whole intellectual world of what the mathematician John Barrow calls 'mathematical Platonism' which assumes that there exists some other world of perfect mathematical forms, aka the Divine Mind, Logos, God, etc. It is not surprising therefor to find a mathematician like John Lennox arguing for Intelligent Design any more than Santa arguing for Christmas.
In contrast biologist examine what they see, and what they see is, as the French geneticist Francois Jacob said, is not the work of some engineer with a preconceived plan butevidence of a tinkerer, endlessly cobbling together available materials and constantly modifying structures.
Just to underline this difference between the two ways of thinking E O Wilson has recently writen, "there are a lot of impressive looking mathematical models but they scarcely ever come up with a real measure of anything that can be applied to nature." In other words they are idealist (Platonic) not realist.
Apart from this what intelligent design theorist tend to ignore is what is no longer there: ie. what has become extinct. What is the explanation of mass extinction and the fact that 99% of all species have become extinct? How intelligent was it to create hydrogen based life which then destroyed itself by producing oxygen - as happened in the first mass extinction? Or the devastation of life caused by Ice Ages and random ateroid strikes? Is this the work of a dmented, demonic or dithering designer? At various times religions have opted for various choices. But Victcorian clergy realised that a benign moral creator could not have been responsible for the world of ruthless predation of putative demonic lizards (dinosaurs) Quite!
It seems that the arguements in favour of intelligent design are themselves endlessly adaptive. But the reality is that this entire way of thinking is fallacious.
|
