God's Undertaker (John C. Lennox)

Science and religion- two areas that spar often in modern culture.  Quoting the back of the book:
"If we are to believe many modern commentators, science has squeezed God into a corner, killed and then buried him with its all-embracing explanations.  Atheism, we are told, is the only intellectually tenable position, and any attempt to reintroduce God is likely to impede the progress of science.  In this stimulating and thought-provoking book, John Lennox invites us to consider such claims very carefully."

In this work, John C. Lennox, Professor in Mathematics at Oxford, investigates a variety of areas in his investigation, to include:
- the scope and limits of science
- irreducible complexity
- micro- and macro-evolution
- the origin of the universe
- the genetic code
- information and the relationship to matter
- origins of information and life

Lennox shows in many areas of science how, regrettably, some scientists have fallen from the scientific ideal of examining the evidence and drawing conclusions from it, and moved instead to trying to force evidence into preconceived notions on "how it ought to be."  He discusses the inconsistencies and/or self-contradictory nature of some scientist's claims, and examines evidence for everything from the extremely large (the universe) to the extremely small (the simplest organisms).  He argues that science is "overstepping its bounds" in some areas, and resorting to rhetoric and ideologies rather than sound scientific method, in a quest to (at all costs) eliminate the possibility that there may be a design to the universe.

Why would science do this?  Why do some scientists care so passionately about eliminating the possibility of intelligence behind life?  I believe there are two main factors:
1) a design implies a designer, which in turn implies a being that is more powerful than ourselves.  We, as humans, don't like to consider such possibilities- we want to be "top dog."  If there is a God, He's stronger than we are; humans have never liked that idea.
2) in the Middle Ages, the Church was known for overstepping its bounds, and in some cases impeding science through its edicts.  Today, I'd argue science is doing the exact same thing.  Like the Church of old, anyone who points out weaknesses or inconsistencies in current mainstream scientific thinking is ostracized or called a fool.  Interesting that most scientific progress has been made by departing from mainstream thinking of the time.  The saddest part of it is, no matter how much we claim to have progressed in recent times, we still hold the same basic mindset that has plagued humanity for centuries- "what we currently believe is correct.  Yes, there are gaps, yes, there are inconsistencies, but this is correct- you're a fool to think otherwise."

As one who believes in God, of course I enjoyed this work.  But, I daresay, I do try to be as analytical as possible about such arguments.  I have read (and will continue to read) works from both sides of the issue, and would encourage all to do the same.  And, Lennox's work is a good starting point to understand the claims of those who believe there is a design inherent in the world.  His style is both scientific (there are calculations in this book), but relatively accessible, and his tone is (to me) "friendly"- it's not a confrontational, Bible-thumping work.  He's debated Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens (among others), and is highly credible.  Overall, this is a worthy read.

Rating: A