John Lennox goes ID

While I don’t have a great deal of respect for John Lennox as a thinker on religion, I had always considered him someone who at least had respect for and understanding of legitimate science. So when I saw this discussion I had hoped he has been invited as someone to provide balance and counterpoint to Behe and Meyer’s anti-scientific drivel. Instead, to my disappointment, it appears he just nods along in agreement with and even adds to their claims. That said, I have not watched the whole thing but from what I have seen he does not take issue with any of the hoary and long-debunked stories about the Cambrian explosion, the evolvability of of functional proteins, irreducible complexity, etc. the ID’ers spin.

So I guess he now goes into the IDiot bin. Sad.

By Design: Behe, Lennox, and Meyer on the Evidence for a Creator - YouTube

I always assumed that Lennox would probably be an ID proponent. But I have never paid much attention to him.

1 Like

I like to listen to this stuff while I go for runs. Bookmarked for later.
In my opinion, Peter Robinson at Hoover has gone a long way in helping legitimize Meyer in particular.
I think “intelligent design” (lower case) is fine as a religious or philosophical concept, but it doesn’t seem coherent as a scientific endeavor. That seems to be the Discovery Institute’s angle–poke holes evolutionary biology while making untestable claims about intelligent design as a legitimate replacement for the science.

1 Like

I was under the impression that Lennox had been at least a fairly sympathetic fellow traveler to the ID Movement for some considerable time.

He even gets his own page on the DI website: John Lennox | Discovery Institute

This post from 2006 about a presentation he gave describes him as an “intelligent design proponent”.


Even WLC has a page at DI:
William Lane Craig | Discovery Institute

WLC is a DI/CSC Fellow, so there is no “even” about it:

WLC appears to support evolution these days, so I find it surprising. The DI information might be outdated. I saw him on a podcast with Meyer a few days ago though (not DI sponsored).

Appearances can be deceptive.

What exactly does it mean for a person to “support evolution”? As a biologist, I don’t support evolution; evolutionary theory (evolution is a phenomenon) is supported by mountains of evidence.


Indeed, there appears to be a lot of wiggle room allowed for someone to make this claim. Behe is often said to “support evolution” because he accepts common descent. Some YEC’s say they “accept evolution” because they believe “kinds” can adapt to their environment.

Another question just came to mind: Meyer keeps saying (incorrectly) that there is insufficient fossil evidence to support the position that all animals are related by common descent. I wonder if he has every written about the fossil record documenting hominid evolution, and whether he makes the same claim regarding common ancestry between humans and other animals.

1 Like

Hello @thirstforknowledge, and welcome to Peaceful Science. :slight_smile:

I think you nailed it.


Was that a serious question or a bit of bait? Because he has. The article used to be easy to find, but I can’t locate it now, just a series of videos.

It was a serious question. I honestly cannot recall whether Meyer has taken a public position on human/chimp common ancestry. It’s probably not all that important whether he has, however.

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.