Thursday, March 18, John Lennox Webinar: Has Science Buried God?

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 15, 2021

Intelligent Design, Science, theism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

12 noon EST, as part of the Cutting Edge Apologetics Webinar Series, sponsored by the C. S. Lewis Society.

Oxford mathematician John Lennox is the author, most recently, of 2084: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humanity (2020)

Also: A course at Trinity University on Darwinism & Intelligent Design, featuring

Professor Tom Woodward, author of “Doubts about Darwin” & “Darwin Strikes Back”
C.S. Lewis Society Webinar by Dr. John Lennox (Oxford University)
CSLS Live Webinars by Dr. Stephen Meyer and Dr. Michael Behe
Dr. Jonathan Wells, author of “Icons of Evolution,” presents a “Zombie Science” Webinar

Course Description. It’s free if you watch from your computer at home and don’t need the credit.

Now here’s the poster for Lennox’s webinar:

information@apologetics.org

2430 Welbilt Blvd.
Trinity, FL 34655

www.apologetics.org

**John Lennox of Oxford University**
**Kicks off Webinar Series on March 18th!**

Mark your calendars and fasten your seat belts. We’re ready for take-off!

One of our most exciting new ministries, just launched this year, is a series of “Cutting Edge Apologetics Webinars” with world-class scholars. Our “kickoff” of the series is a presentation by **Dr. John Lennox**, Emeritus Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University, seen here. He is a renowned author and speaker on evidence for the Christian faith in science. His one-hour webinar is entitled, “Has Science Buried God?” and is slated for noon (EST) on Thursday, March 18.

The webinar will be in an interview format, addressing several key questions related to the recent film “Against the Tide,” in which Dr. Lennox explained the evidence for Christianity **with actor Kevin Sorbo**. We’ll discuss the most compelling new evidence which shows that our universe is the result of brilliant design. We’ll ask, “Is it plausible any longer to view our cosmos as coming from chance interactions of matter and energy—from “pure dumb luck”? Also, Dr. Lennox will survey the flow of historical evidence for the historicity of the New Testament.

Registration for free webinar with Dr. Lennox

Be sure to register for this virtual seminar right away; and a Zoom Webinar link will be supplied! Early registration is recommended, as our virtual auditorium has limited seating.

**Also mark your calendar for a series of evening webinars** (listed below in Eastern Time) that are scheduled for Thursday evenings in late March and April. At apologetics.org, we will publish links for these webinars a week before each event.

**March 25th at 7:30 pm**
Dr. Stephen Meyer – “The Return of the God Hypothesis”

**April 8th at 7:30 pm**
Dr. Michael Behe – “The Case for Design in Biology”

**April 22nd at 7:30 pm**
Dr. Jonathan Wells – “Zombie Science Exposed”

**April 29th at 7:30 pm**
Hillary Morgan Ferrer, of “Mama Bear Apologetics” – “How to Destroy a Culture”

Join us for our Cutting Edge Webinars!

If you are interested in the “Darwinism and Intelligent Design” course taught at Trinity College by C.S. Lewis Society Executive Director, Dr. Tom Woodward, you can click here for more information. It will be taught on five consecutive Thursday evenings, **both in person and virtually**, starting March 25th. **Special rates are available for auditors**!

Finally, if you didn’t catch our **VISION 2021 Virtual Banquet** a few weeks ago, it still can be viewed at Facebook.com/CSLewisSociety.

Continuing Forward for Him,

**Dr. Tom Woodward**
*Executive Director*

**Dave Engelhardt**
*Director and President*

The C. S. Lewis Society is a faith-based, 501(c)(3) ministry. To assist us financially, send your tax-deductible gift to 2430 Welbilt Blvd, Trinity, FL 34655. You may also donate online securely at www.apologetics.org and click on “donate”.

Comments

Bornagain77 “ SA2, I think you have God seriously confused with Darwinian evolution.“ As I never mentioned Darwin, I don’t see how that is possible.Steve Alten2_{March 16, 2021
March
03
Mar
16
16
2021
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT}

SA2, I think you have God seriously confused with Darwinian evolution. (To repeat what I have said several times previously), Here are a few observations that falsify Darwinian evolution. Falsifications that Darwinists themselves simply refuse to ever accept as falsifications of their theory:
Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are found to be ‘directed’. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke. Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.” Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it.” Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God.”. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place! Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science! Darwinist’s, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.
Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
bornagain77_{March 16, 2021
March
03
Mar
16
16
2021
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT}

And I notice, over on Kairosfocus’ latest thread, he is putting anyone who disagrees with him under moderation. Cancel culture rears it’s ugly head again. :)Steve Alten2_{March 16, 2021
March
03
Mar
16
16
2021
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

Bornagain1977 ” SA2, you are right. Nothing can ever bury God. It is impossible for Him to die.” And impossible for him to be falsified.Steve Alten2_{March 16, 2021
March
03
Mar
16
16
2021
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT}

SA2, you are right. Nothing can ever bury God. It is impossible for Him to die.
Acts 2:24 "But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him."
If fact, far from science ever burying God, Christ's triumph over death provides us with the correct solution to the number one mystery and question in science today of 'what is the correct solution to the 'theory of everything'?
Jesus Christ as the correct "Theory of Everything" - video https://youtu.be/Vpn2Vu8--eE Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
bornagain77_{March 16, 2021
March
03
Mar
16
16
2021
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT}

I don’t see how science can bury God.Steve Alten2_{March 16, 2021
March
03
Mar
16
16
2021
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT}

Sev. you do realize that the science of biology is NOT the materialistic philosophy of Darwinian evolution do you not? Or has that little factual detail slipped your attention?
"In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005 "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.” Adam S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to "Evolutionary Processes" - (2000).
And Seversky you do also realize that Darwinian evolution is not now, nor has it ever been, a real and testable science do you not? Or has that little detail also skipped your attention as well?
There is simply nothing that Darwinists can point to within their theory and say, ‘and this is what makes Darwinian evolution a hard science instead of a pseudoscientific religion’ .https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/josh-swamidass-on-the-need-to-single-out-and-punish-creationists/#comment-725934
bornagain77_{March 16, 2021
March
03
Mar
16
16
2021
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

.
Sev: ... bury any inconvenient science that cannot be squared with its doctrines?
Do you mean the way you do it Sev — start off by requiring a logical impossibility as your standard of evidence, then assume your conclusions as a data point, and finish up with a fallacious appeal to authority?
September 2020 Seversky: I haven’t dismissed anything in the history of science or the literature or the data. UB: So in order to start an open-ended description-based replicator (one that is physically capable of what we generally refer to as Darwinian or biological evolution) you have to be able to specify multiple objects (among alternatives) using a common transcribable medium. This requires an irreducible organization made up of rate-independent memory tokens (symbols) and a set of non-integrable constraints, operating together in a semantically-closed system. The products of this system must successfully specify and produce a very particular dissipative process. The objects in this dissipative process must use the laws of nature to cause the medium to be processed, the products to be produced, and the memory to be copied and be placed inside a separate replicant along with a complete set of constraints. And for that pathway to be successful (i.e. semantically closed) requires a simultaneous coordination between the individual segments of the medium that describe the constraints and the individual segments of the medium that describe the various constituents of the dissipative process (i.e. changing the arrangement of one segment, changes the products of all the other segments). These requirements aren’t merely a mouthful, they are an accurate (and heavily abbreviated) summary of what physics and biology have taught us through logic, prediction, and confirmation via experimental result. When you are confronted with these well-documented facts of history and observation, and are given the opportunity to research and discover them for yourself, you immediately jump to say (in your safe, detached, and dull retrospective voice) some variation of the defensive rhetoric: “Well, no one knows how life began”. In other words, you run for the tall grass. You pretend we don’t already know what is physically required of the gene system. You hide from the facts. Seversky: The fact is that no one does know how life began. That is not hiding from the facts, that is facing them. UB: The elements of this description [above] are carefully recorded in the physics and biology literature, and are based on prediction, logic, measurement, and experimental confirmation. None of the material observations involved here is even controversial. Additionally, the logic is both appropriately sparse and impeccable. You’ll also notice that this is about measurement and description, not about denying or supporting any proposed solution to the origin of the system. Are you suggesting here that you now agree with these physical requirements? Seversky: I have never disputed those requirements. I accept what von Neuman and others have determined are the basic requirements for any self-reproducing system. What I do not accept – and neither, apparently, do many of those working in this field – is that the only possible origin for such systems is an intelligent designer. UB: So the only thing that can motivate a decision away from your preferred position is if it can be proven that the origin of life is not possible by any unknown natural cause. We can talk about the posture of your answer in a moment, but first we need to point out the 600lb gorilla hiding behind the curtains. You are using a non-falsifiable condition as your standard of evidence in a scientific question. You’ve set up a situation where the hypothesis you are opposed to must prove a negative or the evidence in favor of that hypothesis is given no value because it does not meet the threshold. Only the proof of a negative is given the capacity to change your position. This is entirely illegitimate reasoning. Of course, no one can force you to use valid reasoning in your beliefs; that is generally something that comes when it is valued by the person doing the reasoning. But you clearly cannot stand firm and suggest that your conclusions were arrived at with anything even resembling sound judgement. That is simply not true. Likewise, when you say that you “accept” opposing evidence (such as Von Neumann and others) it is also simply not true. Under your reasoning, the evidence for your opposition can continue to pile up to the rafters while the evidence in favor of your preferred position remains at zero. Until that opposing evidence proves a negative (something it cannot do) then it does not have the power to affect your conclusion. Physical evidence, indeed, becomes meaningless. This is the ultimate protectionist shield against science and reason; demand something that is not logically possible as your standard for evidence. The bonus is that you get to say you are a person of science and reason, while concealing the fact that you’ve completely eviscerated both of everything they have to offer.
Upright BiPed_{March 16, 2021
March
03
Mar
16
16
2021
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

Asauber/4
Are you afraid that Christians are burying some important science?
We have evidence that some would if they could.
Live ScienceCulture 13% of H.S. Biology Teachers Advocate Creationism in Class By Jennifer Welsh | January 27, 2011 09:25am ET The majority of high-school biology teachers don't take a solid stance on evolution with their students, mostly to avoid conflicts, and fewer than 30 percent of teachers take an adamant pro-evolutionary stance on the topic, a new study finds. Also, 13 percent of these teachers advocate creationism in their classrooms. […] Inside the classroom The data was collected from 926 nationally representative participants in the National Survey of High School Biology Teachers, which polled them on what they taught in the classroom and how much time they spent on each subject. They also noted the teachers' personal feelings on creationism and evolution. Only 28 percent of high-school biology teachers followed the National Research Council and National Academy of Sciences recommendations on teaching evolution, which include citing evidence that evolution occurred and teaching evolution thematically, as a link between various biology topics. "We say [evolution is] a central idea in biology, but someone can get a biology degree and not take a class in it," Randy Moore, a science and evolution education specialist in the biology department at the University of Minnesota who was not involved in the study, told LiveScience. "We let that go in the name of religious freedom." In comparison, 13 percent of the teachers said they "explicitly advocate creationism or intelligent design by spending at least one hour of class time presenting it in a positive light." These are mostly the same group of teachers (about 14 percent) who personally reject the idea of evolution and the scientific method, and believe that God created humans on Earth in their present form less than 10,000 years ago. (That 14 percent included teachers' personal beliefs, regardless of whether they taught these in the classroom.) Some of the creationism advocates insisted that they, rather than scientists, were practicing proper science, with a Minnesota teacher commenting, "I don't teach the theory of evolution in my life science classes, nor do I teach the Big Bang Theory in my [E]arth [S]cience classes.... We do not have time to do something that is at best poor science." Others rejected the scientific method as valid for shedding light on the origin of species, with an Illinois teacher responding, "I am always amazed at how evolution and creationism are treated as if they are right or wrong. They are both belief systems that can never be truly or fully proved or discredited."
I don't know how John Lennox would feel about this but I would say it is cause for concern.Seversky_{March 16, 2021
March
03
Mar
16
16
2021
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

Sev, Are you afraid that Christians are burying some important science? Andrewasauber_{March 16, 2021
March
03
Mar
16
16
2021
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

Just as pertinent is does Christianity want to bury any inconvenient science that cannot be squared with its doctrines?Seversky_{March 16, 2021
March
03
Mar
16
16
2021
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

“Has Science Buried God?” Does science want to bury God? Is it supposed to bury God? A lot of modern science is just veiled (more or less) expressions of hostility toward Christianity and Christians. It's not really science. Andrewasauber_{March 16, 2021
March
03
Mar
16
16
2021
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

I don't really care if science buries god. Science is burying millions of people right now, and that's the important point.polistra_{March 16, 2021
March
03
Mar
16
16
2021
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply