I rather think that my point about us not being the purpose of God’s great work, and the need to challenge an anthropocentric view of creation somewhat chimes with the quote from Matt Franko. Evolution gives us a sense of wonder, a perspective on eternity and forces and timescales beyond our imagination.

‘intelligent design, to acknowledge Mike Thompson’s comments, is the pursuit of perfection, in opposition to the evidence and nature of scripture: set faith up as an aunt sally of perfection, and of course some mud will be slung. Why particular bits are where they are, and why, due to walking upright, human beings have such trouble giving birth are questions that an insistence on immediate perfection leavers us open to. I do find my family quite wonderful and I thank God for that. It is a mystery, behind which may well be an intelligence greater than that necessary to read an Ikea instruction book.

Sit back, breathe, leave the fear of science behind. Praise God, who made it all in his way, not in ours! But if we have our eyes open, it looks as if evolution as the way.

Are you and your family intelligently designed?

Sincerely yours in Christ,
Mike

Who cares? Don’t let it bother you….

“27 but the stupidity of the world God chooses, that He may be disgracing the wise, and the weakness of the world God chooses, that He may be disgracing the strong,
28 and the ignoble and the contemptible things of the world God chooses, and that which is not, that He should be discarding that which is,
29 so that no flesh at all should be boasting in God’s sight.” 1 Cor 1

Resp,

Darwin had a “brilliant scientific mind”? Not a shred of evidence for molecules-to-man evolution in any of his books. That’s how I can tell you haven’t read Origin. Darwin was an atheist circular logician, nothing more.

Pick one species, and identify with evidence, the species from which it allegedly evolved. I’ll be waiting for your reply.

May God give you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the realization of Him, the eyes of your heart having been enlightened (Ephesians 1:18).

Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr.

PS: Your pal, Zimmerman, is an atheist.

Anyway, to the main content of this reply:

One doesn’t see many modern Atheists skeptical about their own overall Worldview — I’m not talking about skepticism of details within that view — which almost everyone is regardless of their worldview — but an overall skepticism of taking the whole thing on. (Thankfully, I have noticed significant exceptions to this case.)

In Prof. Lennox’s case I don’t think what you say holds water. Based on his own biography, which he mentions almost every time he speaks, Lennox HAD indeed done this: he did seriously and objectively look at other Worldviews, including what had out of Europe and Russia appeared, at least during his upbringing. This actually contradicts both your remark about prejudice, and your genetic fallacy.

I can safely say that this is not the case even in general among academics.

A classic example is Clive S. Lewis. He DID after already having been a Christian, take some time out to go back and seriously consider the other worldviews he had, in accepting Christianity, rejected, to see for himself, whether he could on good ground reject these views. He remained a convinced believer. The point is, serious reconsideration is not beyond a Christian.

Counterexamples aside, l can take a good guess at why Lennox would reject at least other religious-systems. Loosely it would be the uniqueness of Jesus as the most authentic revelation of God, and the unique greatness of what he did in addressing humankind’s existential issues through Jesus’ life suffering and death, and the concrete hope he offers founded upon the fact of the resurrection. But that’s another story. You don’t have to accept these claims, but if God exists, this would be the most viable Option. As Lennox says: Jesus and what he did deals uniquely tangibly with the core problem we have, namely our alienation from God.

“By constantly asking myself questions and exposing my faith in God to these alternative views, the effect of it was, over the years, to strengthen my faith in God. Christianity in the end was by far the best explanatory fit at that level.“

The thing about this is that, if I’m reading this correctly, he began his enquiry with a prejudice. He already held a christian worldview, and looked at other belief systems through the lens of christianity. Considering the fact that many non-christian worldviews are primitive by comparison, and in many cases even harder to justify, it comes as no surprise that he would deem his pre-existing worldview superior (not to mention the inherent tendency of people to act as if they were right to begin with).

What he fails to consider is the possibility that christianity is simply the end product of an almost Darwinian evolution of religion. Many of the alternative worldviews are simply older, and you can trace the path from pre-religious fear of nature through pantheism to the Judeo-Christian monotheism that he enjoys today.

The point of being a skeptic is to step outside of one’s own preconceived notions and look at the bigger picture. Mr. Lennox, in simply standing other views beside his own affirmed beliefs, failed to do so. All he has shown is that he prefers christianity, like the person who grew up a beer drinker. Sure, he’s tried wine and spirits. He’s even mixed a few cocktails. He just likes beer better. That’s fine, but he can’t hope to take that position and turn it into a logical proposition that beer is objectively better than other drinks. It simply doesn’t follow.

(tl;dr: you can’t logically propose “I like a certain worldview, therefore it must be true for everyone.”)