Home » Darwinism, Intelligent Design, News, Philosophy » He said it: John Lennox on why Darwinism doesn’t require evidence

He said it: John Lennox on why Darwinism doesn’t require evidence

God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?

In the contemporary scientific world we thus have the very unusual situation that one of science’s most influential theories, biological macroevolution, stands in such a close relationship to naturalistic philosophy that it can be deduced from it directly – that is, without even needing to consider any evidence, as the ancient arguments of Lucretius plainly show. This circumstance is extraordinary since it is very difficult to think of another scientific theory that is in a similar position. (Page 98)

- John Lennox, quoted in Amanda Read, “Darwinocracy: The evolution question in American politics” (Washington Times, September 3, 2011).

Oxford mathematician John Lennox is the author of God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?. Here’s an interview with him.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

2 Responses to He said it: John Lennox on why Darwinism doesn’t require evidence

  1. John Lennox is one of the few creationists who have debated against Richard Dawkins (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw), but sadly they never get into evolution. But Dawkins did recant from the mythicist position (37:00 and 44:40). Both are great personalities worth watching.

  2. 2

    Something so grand as a theory of biological origins and mechanisms needs evidence in such quantity and quality that any less is a sham of human thought.

    If evolutionary biology is not true then there couldn’t be that standard of evidence or any evidence.
    Therefore evolution being false must be based on non biological evidence structures.

    Creationists should hold evolution to a high standard of investigation principals called science.
    lines of reasoning and unrelated subjects have been evolutions claim to evidence.
    Creationism while fighting their evidence has not fought the whole matter of whether they have scientific evidence.
    Missed it.

Leave a Reply