Product Description

Evaluates the evidence of modern science in relation to the debate between the atheistic and theistic interpretations of the universe, and provides a fresh basis for discussion. The book has grown out of the author's lengthy experience of lecturing and debating on this subject in the UK, USA, Germany and Russia, and has been written in response to endless requests for the argumentation in written form. Chapters: *War of the worldviews *The scope and limits of science *Gods, gaps and goblins *Designer universe *Designer biosphere *The nature and scope of evolution *The origin of life *The genetic code and its origin *Matters of information *Taming chance without intelligence *The origin of information

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #8852 in Books
• Published on: 2007-09-01
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 192 pages

Review
This short book is more than just a critical analysis of the deep question posed in the title. It is a scientific detective story, which keeps the reader on his toes as the evidence is put in place bit by bit. John Lennox reaches his final conclusion in grand Hercule Poirot style, revealing the answer that he sees as the only possible solution to the pieces of evidence he has amassed along the way. If you begin this book thinking the answer to the question in the title is 'No', you will enjoy this masterful collecting of the evidence. If you begin it thinking it is 'Yes', maybe you won't in the end be persuaded to change your view, but you will certainly be faced with a lot of challenging and thought-provoking ideas that will certainly tax your powers of reasoning. Whatever your final conclusion, it is impossible not to find this a stimulating read. --Keith Frayn, Professor of Human Metabolism, University of Oxford

As an agnostic in the true sense of the word as 'not knowing', I found John Lennox's book intriguing and providing much food for thought. The relationship between science, both biological and cosmological, and Christian beliefs is closely examined and evidence carefully marshalled to dispel the idea that the two approaches are incompatible. The author is a committed Christian and an internationally recognised mathematician. Will the reader be convinced by his arguments? I must leave this to others to judge. But whatever the conclusion, one must agree that this is a well-written and thought-provoking book and will contribute to reasoned discussion on a fundamental question: Has Science Buried God? --Alan Emery, Emeritus Professor of Human Genetics, University of Edinburgh

God s Undertaker: Has Science buried God; by John Lennox is an important and topical contribution to the debate and questions about the origin of the universe and its physical laws, the origin of complex biological design and the purpose (if any) of mankind. There are some (both religious and materialists) who would like to give the impression that we have answers to these most fundamental questions, and, most disturbingly, even attempt to stifle and censor debate. However, it is my opinion that rather than inhibit further discussion we should encourage further intelligent debate about mankind's origins and that is why I believe it is essential that manuscripts such as God s Undertaker; be published and made available to the public so that they can judge for themselves. --Chris Paraskeva, Professor of Experimental Oncology, University of Bristol

Synopsis
This book evaluates the evidence of modern science in relation to the debate between the atheistic and theistic interpretations of the universe, and provides a basis for discussion. The book has grown out of the author's lengthy experience of lecturing and debating on this subject in the UK, USA, Germany and Russia, and has been written in response to endless requests for the argumentation in written form as people seem to feel that the approach draws them in to the debate in a fresh way.

About the Author
John Lennox is Raeder in Mathematics at the University of Oxford and Fellow in Mathematics and the Philosophy of Science at Green College. He has lectured in many universities around the world and is particularly interested in the interface of Science, Philosophy and Theology.

Customer Reviews

insightful - helped me to understand better
I found this book very helpful. I knew random bits about science and evolution, but didn't really know how that fits in with my believe in God, and if it fits in at all. This book really helped me to put everything in perspective.
He is very objective, and doesn't at all try to convert non-believers. He just explains science, so that I, a non-scientist, can understand it, and how it ties in with religion.
This was a really helpful book. I didn't regret buying it for one second!!

Get to the important bits...
Curious how the most negative reviewers of this book don't seem to engage with it's central points and hence don't seem to have read it properly?

Anyway, there are many good general qualities about this book already addressed by other reviewers. For me the most notable and pressing points of value that Lennox makes are the following:

1) There isn't a necessary tension between science and religion - rather between competing worldviews - most notably (for the purposes of this book) - naturalism and theism. Either one of these basic outlooks can use science legitimately to expand material knowledge, but either one can also quite easily end up using it selectively to fit in with it's ultimate assumptions and aims. So, prescriptive worldviews are the problem. (It was the Aristotelian worldview that Galileo had to overcome - held by secular academics as well as church authorities - not Christianity as such.)

2) 'God of the gaps' can actually be a tag given to naturalists in some cases ('evolution' of the gaps), where gaps in our knowledge are assumed to be obviously fillable by evolutionary processes, ahead of the necessary evidence. However, it can also be applied to areas where science has reached its distant shores and has been left with a logical impasse which it is impotent to cross using experimentation and naturalistic concepts. In other words, it is possible for science and reason to identify and demarkate areas that are inexplicable by scientific investigation itself (- in other words it's not merely a matter of time before they are fixed). There is one area (possibly among others) below where Lennox clearly seems to think that this has happened.

3) DNA - still unexplained in terms of origins, and according to the mathematical prowess of Lennox (using information theory) inexplicable unless you accept that there must be a more fundamental source of information within the universe, from which DNA can have been 'programmed' (my quote marks). Essentially, Lennox draws upon various information theorists to tentatively posit a 'law of conservation of information' which would mean that information (and hence 'intelligence') cannot be built-up from unintelligent inputs, and is hence more fundamental to the design of the universe than previously thought (it is accepted in the case of energy, why not intelligence?). In making this point, Lennox appears to give a damning critique of the explanations used by Richard Dawkins in his book 'Climbing Mount Improbable' where he tries to make the evolution of DNA seem more credible according to Darwinist mechanisms. Possibly I have overly simplified this central proposition of Lennox, but the details are there to be read (should you feel compelled to argue with it), and I'll be damned if I can find, on the internet, any decent responses to the point Lennox is making. It is as if nobody wants to notice, or engage with, such a point. Perhaps some generous and enthusiastic Naturalist can put me straight in the comments section to this review, regarding where Lennox has gone wrong with this proposal, because it seems pretty convincing to me. (and please don't quibble about where 'God' must have got the intelligence from etc - the issue is WHETHER IT IS FUNDAMENTAL OR NOT - we follow the evidence first - then worry about the consequences - right?)

An important point to make, since it relates to the probable expectations of most readers out there, is that Lennox's arguments don't particularly make a case for Christianity - (and he doesn't actually mention it that much) - his arguments point merely towards a creative force and a fundamental property of intelligence within the universe - which of course is compatible with the majority of religious thought (including - although it doesn't necessarily lead to - Christianity)

The five stars are because the book was less dogmatic (religiously) than I expected, and more thought provoking in areas that I thought would have been considered out of bounds by Lennox (evolution), than I was expecting. The pleasure I took here wasn't because I was particularly delighted to give Darwinism a kicking, merely because I wasn't familiar with his arguments and they took me by surprise. Conceivably , admittedly, Lennox could have made almost all the same key points without introducing distinctly Christian allusions at all.

Heaven knows we're agnostics now
Don't get me wrong, this isn't a bad book. It is thought provoking and has confirmed my agnosticism in the existence of some kind of transcendent reality/being/whatever that may relate to our physical existence (I shall return to the idea of agnosticism later in criticsing this book).

The author is trying to persuade us that, not only does science not have the ability to disprove the existence of God (something that science cannot possibly do anyway!) but, also that the results of science in cosmogony and biology make God a more probable alternative than naturalism. On the surface the book is very persuasive. And that is part of the problem, by digging a little deeper you realise that is all it is and offers very little substance for its hypothesis - that science can help us understand the necessary existence of the Christian God.

Mr Lennox argues that because the existence of the universe that we inhabit, the emergence of life, and the emergence of minds from matter are so improbable, then an external intelligent designer must be postulated.

One of the biggest problems I have is with Mr Lennox's idea that macro-evolution does not happen because their is no evidence for it and so we are left with micro-evolution within species rather than macro-evolution of species. The message of this is got across by bombarding the reader with quotes from scientists to the effect that macro-evolution isn't scientific. Two points arise from this, firstly a brief look at the literature on the subject shows that their is ample evidence that macro-evolution has occured (a case in point being the fossil remains of Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis, Paranthropus Robustus, etc, etc, which some might claim is good evidence of the macroevolution of Homo Sapiens). The second point is that the only alternative that Mr Lennox provides is that 'God did it'.

This is a major drawback to the book, as if a plausible scientific alternative had been even mentioned with a cursory examination of this alternative then this would have added weight to his argument. As an aside it is may be the case that Mr Lennox didn't propose a scientific alternative because as Professor Michael Behe (an authority that Mr Lennox quotes to support his ideas) has said, "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occured." Quite so.

The annoyance I found at Mr Lennox's carefully selected use of evidence to 'disprove' macroevolution could also be levelled at his account of the 'impossibility' of abiogenesis. And reminded me of words that Mr Lennox uses to sum up the case for macroevolution that some evolutionary scientists hold, - "It is surely a 'curious inversion' of the normal scientific process to assume the truth of what you want to prove and on that basis discredit evidence that is brought against it." Instead of assuming the truth of macroevolution, Mr Lennox is assuming the truth of the necessity of an intelligent designer and negelecting to mention evidence brought against it.

And this is the ultimate failing of the book - it is essentially biased and selective rhetoric. Mr Lennox asks us , "to see where the evidence leads." And the evidence in this book leads to either agnosticism or deism, but because Mr Lennox has not been persuaded by his own evidence (I assume he remains a committed Christian) how can he expect anyone else (atheists I assume) to be persuaded by it either.

As to the eixstence of God, 'There is much speculation and very little evidence.'

Some Old Nobody
With some letters after his name, but without the presumption to believe that this means that I know what I'm talking about.
Miskatonic University