That's a very nice video, and while the man is allowed his personal opinions, I'd say that most scientists disagree with him, and to a certain extent, he's not even wrong. Let me explain. Science does not prove, it disproves. They take a bunch of ideas, and disprove the lot of them until one hasn't been disproved. Then they take that idea more, and disprove more and more and more of it, sort of how one chips away at stone around a fossil say. After a while, there is no more stone left, only the bones you wanted. At that point, you know you've found a great idea, which in science becomes part of a theory.
So you have wrong, and not yet wrong. There is no 'right' option.
However, with Prof. Lennox' God hypothesis, he's not even wrong, meaning there's no way that he can be proven wrong. It's like saying there's this beautiful and perfect skeleton hidden in a slab of stone, but there's no way to chip away at the stone. We can't try to disprove his idea in any way, shape or form, we have no way of knowing if he's correct or not. Beautiful mathematical equations in the universe? Must come from the mind of a creator! No mathematical equations? Well look at the beauty of it, it must come from the mind of a creator! We have no idea how DNA was formed, therefore it must come from the mind of a creator! We synthesized DNA, look, DNA can only come from the mind of a creator!
See, there's no way at all to tell if his idea is right or wrong, it is non-falsifiable. Falsifiability is a hugely important concept in science, and that is why intelligent design is not science.
As for his point on the Miller-Urey experiment, he is wrong. The gap that has been discovered by science in that area is no more 'bad' than the gap that was discovered with quantum mechanics nor with the gaps about the origin of the cosmos. Gaps in science are areas where research may be conducted, and all knowledge gaps are scientific hot-spots. If there were no gaps, scientists would be out of a job.
He also says it's the science that he does understand that points to his belief in God. That's very well and all, but it's his personal interpretation, because science in and of itself in no way points to God, merely to naturalistic mechanics and formulas about the universe.
"For me, as a Christian believer, the beauty of the scientific laws only reinforces my faith in an intelligent, divine creative force at work. The more I understand science, the more I believe in God because of my wonder at the breadth, sophistication and integrity of his creation."
That's very well, but there is no evidence pointing to an intelligent creative force at work, just natural forces at work. As for the sophistication and integrity, consider the appalling chaos and disorder present everywhere in the universe, stars exploding, asteroids smashing into planets, volcanoes erupting, earthquakes, etc etc etc. What kind of standard does one compare all of this to be able to call it sophisticated and integrity?
If I may reiterate the direction this thread was intended to go,
I believe science and belief in God are, as shawntc put it, compatible. I brought it up in the first place because I often hear people say you can't believe in God and science, and I disagree. I'm no scientist, but I've taken courses in physics and related theoretical studies, and I believe God is simply the operating force behind all of it; the creation of life, the creation of the universe, the laws of physics and nature..
I'd say that religion HAS to be compatible with science, or else it gets left behind.
Also, if you define God as "the operating force behind all of it; the creation of life, the creation of the universe, the laws of physics and nature", then explain how such a god may have a will of its own, benevolence, and how such a god may send his son to earth to be killed and resuscitated on the third day to absolve humanity of the original sin of humans when God created them. If you do not discard those notions, then there are inherent conflicts between your definition and the Judeo-Christian one. If you DO discard those notions, then why not call yourself a deist instead of a christian?
The whole evolution vs creationism thing is the same, I'm not the one to say if evolution is correct, but is doesn't disprove Christianity even if it is.
Agreed. However, creationism isn't an alternative to evolution, it's not scientific. Just pointing out that putting evolution and creation on equal footing is simply not correct.
My point was, people think that the Bible and science books are like sworn rivals, but I believe they fit together, and that God is the ultimate scientist.
I think that biblical literalists turn science and faith one against the other, because they adopt unscientific positions to reinforce their beliefs, and try to call it science. To which scientists respond by saying 'No, creationism/ID is not science' and the general public ends up thinking science is against religion in general, instead of only being against the religious stuff literalists and fundamentalists try to pass off as science.
I'd say science and religion are perfectly compatible, so long as religion stays outside of science.
