John,

You stated at around 29 minutes, you gave the descriptive claim that when we see language, we immediately infer intelligence. Although this may be the our instinct, is this instinct always be accurate?

The reason issue is of such importance to me is the following syllogism:

Premise 1: intellects are necessary for the existence of a code (which I might define as an arbitrary mapping of two discrete systems, such as the alphabet and dots/dashes, that carries information deposited by an intellect)

Premise 2: DNA is a code (arbitrary mapping of two discrete systems, in this case nucleotides and amino acids, which carry information for protein structure and assembly)

Conclusion: an intellect is necessary for the existence of DNA

If this argument is valid and sound, the logical consequence to this syllogism is the following one:

Premise A: An intellect is necessary for the existence of DNA
Premise B: DNA existed before human intellects existed, or intellects in nature existed
Conclusion: Therefore a non-human intellect that is above nature is necessary for the existence of DNA.

The difficulty I am having with such an argument is it does not seem immune to the mechanism/agency distinction. In fact, it seems that after studying the mutation/selection/reproduction process, that mechanism BECOMES the agent for the information contained in DNA. Does this mechanistic account leave no room for the necessity of an agent, unlike your example (studying the engine cannot give us any insight about Henry Ford)?

I would greatly appreciate your help on this.

Stephen

Dear John:
Thank you very much for posting talks on your web site.  I find them very interesting, stimulating, and useful!  May God bless you in everything you do.

John Lennox makes a mistake made by many people who call themselves and may have been trained as (e.g. Michael Behe) scientists but have a profound ignorance of the nature of science.  Not once did he allude to Karl Popper or Werner Heisenberg, a clear indication of his folly.  I agree that Dawkins is mistaken in his attempt to use science to demonstrate the non-existence of a God.  I agree that science is neither deistic or atheistic.  After establishing these correct assertions, however, Prof. Lennox then takes a left turn into never-never land and commits the same mistake that Dawkins does.  He tries to use science to confirm a supernatural concept.  He starts with the word trick of stating that the scientists belief that the universe follows laws is equivalent to a religious faith.  Had he understood Popper he would have realized the absurdity of such a statement.  The true scientist is aware that in order to understand the universe we have to start with the assumption that the natural world we observe and have confirmed by others is real.  By accumulating these observations and applying inductive and deductive logic to the patterns we discern in their forms, functions and relationships we slowly increase our UNDERSTANDING of the natural world.  You will note that I never used the words “proof” or “truth” in my description of what science does.  Reductionism died in 1927 and no true scientist seeks to restore the dream that we will eventually know ultimate reality through physics and chemistry.  A true scientist has the maturity, as stated by Maxwell “to endure uncertainty” about the natural world.  Since scientists have personal needs as do all humans, they may have supernatural beliefs.  But the two thought systems never mix (although some have suggested they may in one of the dimensions of the string theory version of the unified field theory).  John Lennox is simply another well-educated intelligent design advocate whose agenda is to convince the world that it needs Christianity to be saved.  That may be, but I doubt fervent believers in other religions would buy his sales pitch. 

Yep. I agree with rockyway on this one:

1. His historical facts are wrong - more evidence of the existance of Jesus than of Julius Caesar, and I doubt Dawkins questions that he lived.
2. His theologies contain elementary falts a ten year old could point out.
3. He often seems to think that becuase human minds can’t comprehend things like God’s awesomeness, that means God’s awesomeness does not exist.
4. He believes that modern science is infallible. (Steady state theory, geocentrism, the old “the sun sets into the sea” theory, flat earth, (none of which are Biblical, by the way) need I go on?
5. He somehow thinks that metaphysical things can be dis/proven by physical means.
6. He preassumes his conclusions.

Amazing talk.

Hello John; I enjoyed your talk. I especially enjoyed your pointing out some of the flaws in the ‘scholarship’ of Richard Dawkins. Because he’s such a darling of the media he gets away with errors and nonsense the average college student wouldn’t get away with.