by John C. Lennox

I have fixed feelings about this book. His two central arguments are:

1) Science is not incompatible with God.
2) Scientific evidence supports the existence of God; this is the Intelligent Design argument.

I have limited agreement with the first point and I disagree with the second.

The book is an interesting read and covers a great deal of material. It also attempts to address common criticisms such as God of the Gaps and Occam’s Razor (in the chapter “The complexity of God: a fatal objection?”). On the negative side, the explanation of science is hopelessly biased to ensure the author gets the desired outcome – straw man attacks abound. The most controversial chapters are near the end of the book, including those addressing ID and criticism of ID. Presumably he hopes the reader is worn down in earlier chapters to accept things without question. He also constantly confuses the issue of the origin of life and Darwinism. Darwinism is not concerned with the origin of life!

From my experience, you will find the core argument of most ID books, including this one, to be:
1) Either natural selection is correct or there is an intelligent designer.
2) Natural selection is false.
3) Therefore an intelligent designer (God) exists.

First off, statement 1 is a false dilemma. I could equally say “natural selection or pan-dimensional mice did it” or “natural selection or the brain in a vat scenario”. Both are more likely from a scientific view.

Secondly, this is an argument from ignorance. Lack of evidence to support evolution (or “gaps”) is not disproof of evolution. Personal disbelief is not disproof of anything. If there was empirical disproof of evolution, that does not automatically provide support for any alternative theory.

The author does argue scientific evidence points toward the existence of God. The argument is something like (forgive any straw men): A cell containing DNA is like a computer with a program. The program runs in a deterministic way and cannot itself produce any novelty (“information”) that is not already expressed in its DNA. Since DNA is passed from generation to the next, no new information is added and no progress is possible. This argument is relatively new to me.

Unfortunately, there are a few problems with this argument. The most obvious one is cells (or life forms) do not exist in an empty world – their survival is dependent on the cells characteristics in context with their environment. Natural selection transfers information from the environment into DNA by the process of elimination i.e. those less adapted do not have their DNA transferred into their offspring. The DNA itself is not the selection mechanism!

Another dubious point is this argument is a based on information theory which is mathematical in nature. Mathematical knowledge is a priori. Empirical knowledge is a posteriori. You cannot say physical process X is impossible because of mathematical theory Y! It is only through observation that we see mathematics sometimes reflects physical reality. If we choose the wrong mathematical model, it is not applicable to reality. I already outlined about why this model does not apply to natural selection. (The author also seems to think science is inductive – which I find a bit weird. See the section on perpetual motion.)

Finally, his rebuttal of Occam’s razor:

“The deeper down you probe into the ultimate nature of the structure of the universe, the more complex it becomes.” “If Richard Dawkins objects to the complexity of God as an ultimate explanation in terms of concepts like ‘energy’ since we do not really understand them”

First, tu quoque! If particle physics is “complex”, what has that to do with the “simplicity” of God? Secondly, the idea that fundamental particles (e.g. quarks) are more complex that compound materials (e.g. atoms) is nonsensical: atoms contain quarks! Therefore individual quarks are more simple! Third, he does nothing to address my point that God is the maximally complex hypothesis.

To conclude: a fun read … but the reader should beware! If I had to point out every fallacy, we would be here for the rest of our natural lives.

Anti Citizen One

PS I think I will read Nietzsche to unwind… I need the cobwebs removed lol