Customer Reviews
insightful - helped me to understand better - By: Richard, 19 Aug 2008 
I found this book very helpful. I knew random bits about science & evolution, but didn't really know how that fitsin with my believein God, & if it fitsin at all. This book really helped me to put everythingin perspective.
He is very objective, & doesn't at all try to convert non-believers. He just explains science, so that I, a non-scientist, can understand it, & how it tiesin with religion.
This was a really helpful book. I didn't regret buying it for one second!!
Get to the important bits... - By: ChrisP, 08 Aug 2008 
Curious how the most negative reviewers of this book don't seem to engage with it's central points & 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 & pressing points of value that Lennox makes are the following:
1) There isn't a necessary tension between science & religion - rather between competing worldviews - most notably (for the purposes of this book) - naturalism & 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 fitin with it's ultimate assumptions & 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 naturalistsin some cases ('evolution' of the gaps), where gapsin 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 & has been left with a logical impasse which it is impotent to cross using experimentation & naturalistic concepts. In other words, it is possible for science & reason to identify & 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 unexplainedin terms of origins, & 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, & is hence more fundamental to the design of the universe than previously thought (it is acceptedin the case of energy, why not intelligence?). In making this point, Lennox appears to give a damning critique of the explanations used by Richard Dawkinsin 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), & 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 & enthusiastic Naturalist can put me straightin 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 & 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, & more thought provokingin 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 & 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 - By: C. N. Hose, 18 Jul 2008 
Don't get me wrong, this isn't a bad book. It is thought provoking & has confirmed my agnosticismin 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 laterin 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 sciencein cosmogony & 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 & 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, & 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 & 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 casein 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 & 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 & negelecting to mention evidence brought against it.
And this is the ultimate failing of the book - it is essentially biased & selective rhetoric. Mr Lennox asks us , "to see where the evidence leads." And the evidencein 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 & 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
Has science buried God? Er, no. - By: Matthew GH Gotham, 17 May 2008 There are at least three analogies relevant to the philosophy of science at the beginning of the book which Dr. Lennox has been usingin talks for years. I know, because I was at one of themin Oxfordin 2003. On that day he had been given half an hour to burn through all his material, so he spoke at breakneck speed & 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 questionin the title. For instance, he points out that to see this big argument as one between science & religion is to commit a category error: the argument is between two worldviews: naturalism & theism*. Briefly, the naturalist sees the universe as a closed & self-sufficient system, while the theist sees the universe as caused by, ontologically dependent on & 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, & goes on to explain way.
And so the rest of the book consists of a series of expositions & defences of teleological arguments. In all this it is quite clear where Lennox's expert knowledge lies, that is,in Mathematics & Philosophy of Science. During the first couple of chapters dealing with scientific methodology, worldview construction & inferences Lennox is clearlyin his element, but this authoritative tone rather drops offin chapters 5-7 ("Designer universe?", "Designer biosphere?" & "The origin of life") as he relies heavily on quotations. Now, these are well-chosen quotations, & 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 & hence Mathematics. Now, Lennox has been concerned on numerous occasions throughout the book to anticipate & rebut the objection that he's arguing for a "God of the gaps", insisting that abduction is a valid method of inferencein science & that we make inferences to intelligence all the time. However, it's when he turns to treating DNAin information-theoretical terms that these ideas are really fleshed out. Noting thatin pure mathematics "If a conjecture [...] has been thought about for many years & 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 & a half arguing for a "law of information 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 conservedin 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, & 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 & publiclyin conflict at the moment.
A Scientific and Philosophical Defence of Rational Faith - By: S. Wilde, 30 Apr 2008 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 directionin which science points.
In the opening chapters Lennox surveys the leading theoriesin cosmology & 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 & 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 sailsin to the stormy waters of Biology & Biochemistry to see what the unfolding world of DNA & chemical microstructures has to say to us. He draws on his vast knowledge of mathematics & information theory to shows the incredible implausibility of the first mutating self-replicator arising by purely by chance. He shows that whilst random mutation & 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 complexityin 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 lurksin the shadows of the recent New Atheist writings. It dealsin broad terms with the limits of science & 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 & avoiding a "God of the gaps" approach to Christian apologetics. His objection to this form of lazy intellectualism comes across loud & clear. Lennox highlights the "bad gaps" that we don't know the answer to because science hasn't advance well enough & 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 deficiencyin 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.
