Dawkins vs. Lennox at the University of Alabama: Get Your Tickets Now

_{Paul Nelson

July 1, 2007

Intelligent Design}

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

Richard Dawkins you know, but John Lennox, his Oxford colleague in mathematics and the philosophy of science, may require a brief introduction. Professor Lennox is the author of the forthcoming book God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? and has lectured around the world on mathematics, science, and theology. I first met John in Southern California 11 years ago, have spent time with him in Istanbul and Hungary, and regard him as one of the wisest scholars I know.

The Alys Stephens Center at the University of Alabama (Birmingham) will be the site of the October 3, 2007, debate between Dawkins and Lennox. This promises to be a newsworthy, well-attended event.

Comments

[...] debate ? Dawkins/Lennox debate Dawkins vs. Lennox at the University of Alabama: Get Your Tickets Now | Uncommon Descent God Delusion Debate to Pit Dawkins Against Christian Apologist John Lennox Debates Noted Atheist [...]Dawkins/Lennox debate - The PuritanBoard_{October 2, 2007
October
10
Oct
2
02
2007
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

[...] John Lennox, who is a mathematician on the faculty of the University of Oxford and is debating Richard Dawkins in October on the topic of whether science has rendered God obsolete (see here for the debate), has this to say about my book NO FREE LUNCH: “In this important work Dembski applies to evolutionary theory the conceptual apparatus of the theory of intelligent design developed in his acclaimed book The Design Inference. He gives a penetrating critical analysis of the current attempt to underpin the neo-Darwinian synthesis by means of mathematics. Using recent information-theoretic Ã¢â‚¬Å“no free lunchÃ¢â‚¬Â theorems, he shows in particular that evolutionary algorithms are by their very nature incapable of generating the complex specified information which lies at the heart of living systems. His results have such profound implications, not only for origin of life research and macroevolutionary theory, but also for the materialistic or naturalistic assumptions that often underlie them, that this book is essential reading for all interested in the leading edge of current thinking on the origin of information.” [...]Kevin Padian: The Archie Bunker Professor of Paleobiology at Cal Berkeley | Uncommon Descent_{July 20, 2007
July
07
Jul
20
20
2007
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

[...] * Those in Alabama or near the area might be interested in a debate at the University of Alabama on October 3, 2007. Richard Dawkins will debate John Lennox about “The God Delusion.” (HT :: Uncommon Descent) [...]Quick Hits :: 07.03.07 « Provocations & Pantings_{July 3, 2007
July
07
Jul
3
03
2007
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

I would recommend Bahnsen to skeptic and believer alike.geoffrobinson_{July 2, 2007
July
07
Jul
2
02
2007
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT}

Here is another interesting Berlinski blurp. ------------------------------------ Figures like Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins are profoundly embarrassing the scientific establishment, and by that I mean the top biology departments, the editors of Nature and Science, the senior bureaucrats at the NSF and NIH, by going on and on about atheism, selfish genes, evolutionary psychology, stuff that everyone with their heads screwed on tight knows has absolutely nothing to do with any of the serious sciences. And I do mean absolutely, and I do mean nothing. And yet no one much cares. The ACLU is not up in arms about anything these guys say. Put Dawkins on a high school reading list with his claims about being a fulfilled atheist Ã¢â‚¬â€œ thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s fine, no problems there. Everyone quite understands that Daniel Dennett is lacking a little in the top story, but he makes the most of his handicap, God Bless. And, again, no one cares what he says.dougcampo_{July 2, 2007
July
07
Jul
2
02
2007
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

Geoffrobinson: Even for a skeptic?bork_{July 2, 2007
July
07
Jul
2
02
2007
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

We will never disprove darwinism and hurl it into the trashcan of history if we fight among ourselves.dougcampo_{July 2, 2007
July
07
Jul
2
02
2007
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

"romanist" For the love of God and everything holy, please no sectarianism. Thanks.dougcampo_{July 2, 2007
July
07
Jul
2
02
2007
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

MaxAug, A 'romanist'? Oh, you mean a Catholic. If he is, he probably has the beliefs that were in place with the original Church. Go read some Eusebius.Tedsenough_{July 2, 2007
July
07
Jul
2
02
2007
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

Bahnsen is worth the price of admission.geoffrobinson_{July 2, 2007
July
07
Jul
2
02
2007
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT}

I just listened to the debate between Dawkins and Mcgrath. I don't think any was better than the other, though McGrath was too defensive. It seemed more like an ad to buy the books more than a debate. Honestly, I think the audeience had better points and questions. Too bad I have to buy Bahnsen's stuff to listen to it. But to stay on op: I hope Dr. Lennox comes prepared. He is going be protrayed as the mouthpiece of christianity - which could be bad.bork_{July 2, 2007
July
07
Jul
2
02
2007
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

I used Bahnsen's methodologies against Dawkins on his book tour during Q&A. It was quite fun.geoffrobinson_{July 2, 2007
July
07
Jul
2
02
2007
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

Btw, I thought Dawkins walked all over McGrath (who was quite pathetic) in the dabate they had.Robo_{July 2, 2007
July
07
Jul
2
02
2007
02:40 AM
2
02
40
AM
PDT}

I concur re William Lane Craig and Greg Bahnsen. Didn't Dawkins turn down the offer to debate Craig? Shame about Bahnsen; he was a smart guy with a very intriguing apologetic methodology. Check out www.apollos.ws for Craig's stuff and www.cmfnow.com for Bahnsen.Robo_{July 2, 2007
July
07
Jul
2
02
2007
02:23 AM
2
02
23
AM
PDT}

[Off topic] Now they say humans and chimpanze 1% difference is a myth. http://creationsafaris.com/crev200706.htm#20070629a
Jon Cohen made a remarkable admission in Science this week.1 The popular notion that humans and chimpanzees are genetically 99% similar is a myth, and should be discarded. ... [On Coexpressed genes] In this last measure, for instance, a 17.4% difference was found in genes expressed in the cerebral cortex. ... But Ã¢â‚¬Å“Truth be told,Ã¢â‚¬Â [Cohen]he begins in the next sentence, the inaccuracy of the statistic was known from the start: But truth be told, Wilson and King also noted that the 1% difference wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t the whole story. They predicted that there must be profound differences outside genesÃ¢â‚¬â€they focused on gene regulationÃ¢â‚¬â€to account for the anatomical and behavioral disparities between our knuckle-dragging cousins and us. Several recent studies have proven them perspicacious again, raising the question of whether the 1% truism should be retired. Ã¢â‚¬Å“For many, many years, the 1% difference served us well because it was underappreciated how similar we were,Ã¢â‚¬Â says Pascal Gagneux, a zoologist at UC San Diego. Ã¢â‚¬Å“Now itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s totally clear that itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s more a hindrance for understanding than a help.Ã¢â‚¬Â ... 1Jon Cohen, News Focus on Evolutionary Biology, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%,Ã¢â‚¬Â Science, 29 June 2007: Vol. 316. no. 5833, p. 1836, DOI: 10.1126/science.316.5833.1836.
I do not have access to the journal. Is the above a good representation of Cohen's article in Science? Maybe this could be an interesting topic for UD to discuss. Are we living in a lie for the last 30 years? And the whole scientific establishment is lying to the public?MatthewTan_{July 2, 2007
July
07
Jul
2
02
2007
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT}

The one man I'd like to see debating Dawkins is Dr. William Lane Craig. That would be the end of this guyIDist_{July 1, 2007
July
07
Jul
1
01
2007
11:45 PM
11
11
45
PM
PDT}

I know nothing about this other guy. But I'm hoping he goes further than "science and God can co-exist." I would like to see him go further and make a strong positive case as well as attacking Dawkins' position. And I concur about the late Greg Bahnsen.geoffrobinson_{July 1, 2007
July
07
Jul
1
01
2007
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT}

I don't know if I agree completely with his methodology, but I would have absolutely loved to see Dawkins or Dennett or Harris debate Greg Bahnsen.nemesis_{July 1, 2007
July
07
Jul
1
01
2007
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

Are they selling tickets, or is it a "just show up" event?russ_{July 1, 2007
July
07
Jul
1
01
2007
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

If it is not too much offensive, can i ask what is Dr. Lennox Christian theological background (romanist? biblical Christian?)? What is his apologetic method? I mean, really, Dawkins is not a fool, he knows, for instance, he can engage Alister McGrath, and cant engage others...MaxAug_{July 1, 2007
July
07
Jul
1
01
2007
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

I hope it is taped.bork_{July 1, 2007
July
07
Jul
1
01
2007
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

One signalling. You excuse to me but I do not know like communicating with you. Which it is your comment to these articles? http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=870 http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/adrianth/ade.htmlorarel_{July 1, 2007
July
07
Jul
1
01
2007
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

It's hard to have a debate about God without mentioning Origins. I would like to know how will Clinton R. Dawkins avoid it.Mats_{July 1, 2007
July
07
Jul
1
01
2007
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

DidnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t Dawkins say he refused to debate any Ã¢â‚¬Å“psuedo-scientificÃ¢â‚¬Â Theists?
This applies if the debate is on darwinisim, not God and religion.IDist_{July 1, 2007
July
07
Jul
1
01
2007
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

Didn't Dawkins say he refused to debate any "psuedo-scientific" Theists?bornagain77_{July 1, 2007
July
07
Jul
1
01
2007
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

Now I think that's going to be very interesting. I'd like to see Dawkins' "why there almost certainly is no God" nonsense being destroyed with him present, this may atleast help humbling him... or may be I'm dreaming?IDist_{July 1, 2007
July
07
Jul
1
01
2007
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply