Professor John Lennox: Will Science Ever Find God's Fingerprints?

hello and welcome ladies and gentlemen to this very special occasion where we have an opportunity to explore this great question will science ever find God's fingerprints my name is Shane Martin and I'm a fourth year Lauren Hill science student here at Adelaide University and I'm a member of evangelical students here at a late University evangelical students is the Christian student group who are hosting this public lecture evangelical students aims to reach every uni student on north terrace with the good news about jesus christ we have about 150 members and we run public talks and other engaging activities on campus every week of the academic year on behalf of evangelical students it's my privilege to welcome you here today and we thank you for taking time out of your day to explore this topic and our hope is that this will be a thought-provoking and engaging hour for you now just a few things to point out before we get started the first is that if you have a phone please switch it to silent the second is to draw your attention to the pieces of paper that you found as you sat down now I tell you more about these forms at the conclusion of the hour but you may find it helpful to use the blank side to jot down questions or notes during the talk in a moment I will introduce professor John Lennox but before I do that let me explain how our time will run shortly professor Lennox will deliver his address which will conclude before 2:00 p.m. at that point there'll be an opportunity for those of us that need to leave on the hour to do so however we hope that you will be able to remain and join us for Q&A where professor Lennox will answer your now the way to ask those questions is to send an SMS to the number which you can see printed on the bottom of these pieces of paper on the blank side now you can use this number anytime from now onwards to send in your questions I know from the conversations that I have with my friends about science and God that this question that we are asking today it's a big issue it's a big issue for many people what a privilege it is then to think this through together with Professor Lennox professor Lennox is a British mathematician philosopher of science and a Christian apologist who is the professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford he is a world-class speaker and has conducted public forums with high-profile atheists from around the globe and he also happens to be a very pleasant and gracious human being would you please keep professor Lennox a warm Adelaide welcome thanks for joining us here today professor Lenox that's my pleasure sir all right so just a few questions to warm you are I've talked about how you are a mathematician and how during your university years you studied math mm-hmm now I study law and since you twelve have tried to stay as far away as possible from mathematics why would you want to study maths at university Oh to try to stay as far away from the laws possible actually that's unfair because I think that mathematicians and lawyers have something very important in common we're both interested in the analysis of argument but why you'd want to study mathematics is first of all because you discover you're quite good at it and it's tremendous fun so I enjoyed it that's probably true of most of the students here including you your friend law firm or did you sort of yeah all right so you studied maths at university during the university years did you ever commit a university prank I did just before I went to university to get revenge on a French teacher a group of us one evening decided that what we do was to get a told this was years ago you know nearly a hundred years ago I suppose and we got an old radio set that squeaked and whistled and so on and we set it up squeaking and whistling and we got a group of students or potential students to sit around a telephone and we got someone who could imitate an American voice to phone this French teacher up and tell him even one a holiday in Hollywood and he could get this holiday if he would sing for us it's a long long way to tipperary and he did so that was the 1i I can't remember you know I remember various pranks that happened while I was at Cambridge but I suppose I wasn't ever enough I mean there were a group of chaps who discovered some workmen working on the road and digging it up and so on so they went to the police station they said to the police in Cambridge you know there's a group of students pretending to be workmen digging up the road they then rushed back to the workman and said you know there's a group of students dressed as policemen they're going to come to you in a few minutes and it created utter chaos I don't let me give you any ideas ladies and gentlemen Professor John Lennox well he is the distinction of completely stumping me I different that I'll start festive before it's lovely to be with you you know and I'd be very interested to know tell me how many of you are science students hands up okay hands down how many of you would roughly call yourselves in the arts or humanities so it's about half and half and how many if you're in other fields okay great because although I'm a kind of scientist we and Cambridge they give you a BA in mathematics and everything else in fact so I very much enjoy the art side and just to explain to you I wanted to be a linguist when I was younger I was my best subject was Latin and then I wanted to be a modern linguists because I loved speaking French and German and so on and then I changed to wanting to be an engineer an electrical engineer because it became a ham radio operator when I was 13 and then my headmaster said look you can get into Cambridge maybe if you do mathematics because it's the only subject that we can teach that level so I did mathematics so I've enjoyed in life be interested in both the arts and the sciences and I've been privileged to have a mentor and a friend who was a professor of Greek so that he introduced me to the wonders of the classical world and the way in which the ancient Greeks thought about the big questions and I was interested to discover that your motto at the University of Adelaide is to seek light that's a wonderful aspiration it rhymes very much with our motto at Oxford which is Domino's Illuminati oh they are that is the Lord is my light so seeking light and the idea of God being a light we're at the foundation of Oxford University so it was quite clear that the people have founded my University did not see any Khan clicked between intellectual investigation and faith in God it's our century that has created the fog that makes people think that there is some sort of conflict between intellectual activity in general and science in particular and faith in God and the question I've been asked to address is will science ever find God's fingerprints the answer actually is science has already found them and depends crucially on them which may surprise you and the very first thing that shows us that there are fingerprints of intelligence in the universe is our own intelligence you see think about it one of the famous articles that mathematicians love was written by I gained vigor in 1961 it's called the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics I mean think about it here's a mathematician and she's thinking in here about the universe out there and she comes up with a set of equations or some sort of dynamical system some sort of mathematical object that describes what's going on out there so accurately that by using her mathematics he can make predictions about what's going to happen out there now ignor was the genius he won the Nobel Prize he was genius enough to realize that this is a vast mystery how does that work how can we reduce what's happening right there in our mind to a set of equations that are written in symbols Einstein was the same he was amazed as so amazed that he said the only incomprehensible thing about the universe is that is comprehensible how can we understand it and write it down in mathematics there's a lot of interest in that question because you see we're doing our science with our mind what is the mind there's a very popular book in Holland at the moment that I came across recently you are your brain and many of my colleagues are of the atheist persuasion think that that the mind is the brain and if you ask them what the brain is they'll tell you roughly speaking that the brain is the end product of a mindless unguided process that didn't have it in mind well that's extremely interesting if you knew that your iPad iPod eye whatever it is computer Mac and so on was the end product of the mindless unguided process would you trust it of course not so here we have the rather intriguing situation where some thinkers in our generation are suggesting that the thing you do science with is not trustworthy at all I find that deeply unsatisfying because you see what's happening there is that a logical argument based on a reductionist philosophy reducing everything to physics and chemistry and ultimately to meaningless products of a blind universe actually reduces and destroys rationality now there are many people that have seen that I was taught quantum physics by professor Sir John Polkinghorne and he points out in many of his books that this just can't work if you reduce thought simply to physics and chemistry of the firing of synapses you'd never know that you were thinking because it destroys rationality it destroys meaning so my first point is this that the very fact that we can think rationally is a pointer that this universe is not all there is that there is a super nature beyond nature that there is an intelligence beyond this universe now the interesting thing is this that's not a new idea it's a very ancient idea but importantly for our discussion this is the key idea that gave rise to science in the modern sense Alfred North Whitehead was a brilliant historian and philosopher of science and he said you know in 1500 Europe knew less less than Archimedes who died in 212 BC but by 1700 newton's principia mathematica had been written a work of utter genius and he asked the question what happened between 1500 and 1700 that led to this meteoric explosion in Europe in the west of interest in formulating the universe and understanding how it works in mathematical terms his answer it comes from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God as creator and this is so fascinating to me because from our vantage point of the 21st century we have people like Stephen Jaggu the late Stephen Jay Gould is a brilliant science writer who said whatever we say of nature there's no evidence there are no fingerprints of God in nature and yet the very science the modern science which he is about started with people who did believe that they were thinking God's thoughts after him to quote Johannes Kepler the brilliant prog method Titian so it raises very interesting ideas so one thing I want to get straight first is this that historically science developed in a way that was described by CS Lewis very succinctly men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected Lord nature because they believed in the lawgiver you see far from science belief in God being opposites it was actually belief in a creator that was the motor that drove modern science people believed there was a god so they looked for his fingerprints and one of the biggest ones was the one we don't realize because it's our own thinking process it's her own rationality it's our own capacity to do science that is the most powerful evidence because you see if you reduce your thinking by a cause-and-effect process simply to the laws of nature wherever they came from and natural processes you destroy meaning now the kind of argument that I'm referring to is much more familiar to you if I put in another way I come from Island as some of you might recognize from my accent and how often the people said to me oh you say that because you're an Irishman have you heard that kind of argument or you say that because you're a student or you say that because you're a woman or you say that because you're a man and so on have you heard that kind of argument but do you realize what the argument is doing it is saying because you're an Irishman that is we could give you a causal explanation than what you say is no meaning now that's very interesting it's using causal explanation to empty your statement of meaning exactly the same thing happens on the philosophical level when you reduce thought to the firing of synapses in your brain it empties anything you say of meaning the way to get meaning as the early pioneers of science saw they believe there would be meaning to be fired and they could rationally describe the universe because they believe God had created it so they started with faith in God isn't that interesting and it was a rational faith that is it was based on evidence and the more they discovered about the universe the more they admired the way God had done this so brilliantly so the first fact is a fact because historians and philosophers of science these days are largely agreed about this that there's a very intimate connection between faith in God in the biblical sense and the rise of modern science so have we found the fingerprints of God the answer is yes it's not a question of will we find them we're using them all the time now that raises a whole lot of questions as I very well know and we could approach the rest of this and I'm going to give you plenty of time for questions in two different ways I could start by talking to you about some of the results of science that indicate that there's more to it and I'm going to mention one or two of those like for instance the fine-tuning of our universe now you know about that on an informal level if the some were a little bit nearer to earth life as we know it would be impossible because of the heat seems to me that and somewhere here it's virtually impossible which is why I'm here in winter if the Sun were too much further away life would be impossible because of the cold if earth rotated ever so slightly faster you'd get a free trip into space but you wouldn't exist because there would be no atmosphere if the earth rotated a little bit slower you'd freeze to death of the daytime and both sorry freeze to death at nighttime and boiled to death in the daytime so it's just got to be right and there are so many parameters that have got to be right it's almost unbelievable but when you get to the level of understanding the history of the universe from its commencement it gets staggeringly fascinating one of my colleagues Sir Roger Penrose at Oxford is arguably the most brilliant living mathematician his works has worked a great deal with Stephen Hawking and he is not a theist but in one of his books he said if you want to get a universe like this with the second law of thermodynamics which means informally that even your rolls-royce will eventually rust that is nature's running down so if you want a universe like that like this one then he says the creator's aim has to be accurate to one part in 10 to the power 10 to the power 43 that's more money than you got in the bank in fact in such a large number that if you put a 1 here and put a zero on every elementary particle in the universe you cannot write that number right to the base 10 because there are only about 10 to the power of 70 elementary particles in the universe and this is 10 to the 10 to 123 it's staggeringly accurate that's his calculation not mine and the interesting thing that over the past 50 60 years so many of these parameters that are finely tuned have been discovered that it is led to a huge question one of the fundamental forces that Paul Davis an Australian mathematician colleague brilliant writer I've met him and had debate with him several times he just points out that the evidence for some kind of intelligence is overwhelming because he points out one ratio I think itself the electromagnetic force to gravity has to be accurate to a far less degree than the number I just quoted but he said the accuracy is like this suppose you were aiming a gun and your target was one centimeter across and it was sitting at the far end of the observable universe the chance of kept hitting that target is about one in 10 to the 60 which is the fine tuning of this ratio now this is fascinating this is science discovery mounting up and raising a big question what does it mean because it very much looks as if to quote another physicist who's not a believer in God it almost looks as if the universe was expecting us and sir Fred Hoyle who was one of my examiners at Cambridge the famous cosmologists he said it looks as if a super intellect has monkeyed with physics and he was impressed and I talked him on one occasion about it by this phenomenal fine-tuning and it led max tegmark of Princeton a brilliant physicist to say well he said looking at this there's either a god or a multiverse well he's wrong actually because God can create as many universes as he likes God and the multiverse are not alternatives of course and it fascinates me I was in a debate with one of Oxford's leading atheists very nice chap professor milli Khan and he said I hope for this debate tonight you're going to use your best argument all I said please tell me what my best argument is I'd love to hear from you as you're an atheist so he said I'll give you this for free he said your best argument is fine-tuning he said if ever anything was going to convince me that there was a God out there it would be the fine-tuning and physics show of course I used the argument and he tried to oppose it briefly but it was a very honest admission it is a powerful argument it's not the only argument but it is a very powerful argument from the increasing knowledge we have of science that something is going on now I actually believe that's something that's going on is the fact that this is evidence of a creator there is a God who is behind the universe now once you say that of course you make all kinds of objections and I'm going to have a look at some of those objections for a moment and I hope you're thinking of questions please listen with a view to asking questions and write them down when you think of them because it'll be far more fun if you have formulated a carefully balanced briefly worded question that we can look at afterwards and then I'll be talking about things you're interested in rather than talking of things you're not interested in so let's come back to this question because we need to talk a little bit about the nature of explanation because the constant pressure that you meet in university as students or as professors is look you've got to choose between God and science I mean god all you're saying is I can't explain that therefore God did it you're lazy how many times have I been told them intellectually lazy that's all you're saying yeah you can't explain this therefore God did it well that's what I'm not saying there are people who say that and because they say that they get into trouble they believe in what's called a God of the gaps you know the ancient Greeks believed in the God of Thunder and then some of them went Adelaide University after a few thousand years they studied atmospheric physics and they gave up believing in the God of Thunder as most of you have I presume because you understand how Thunder occurs that you know about temperature gradients and pressures and electrical discharges and vibrations of sound and so on and so forth so exit the god of thunder and there are many people today that use that kind of argument to get rid of the God of the Bible I had a debate we have a God Squad debate at Oxford every year two would be all dress up and in dinner jackets and so on and it's just a parliamentary kind of debate so there were three and my side and three of the other side and Richard Dawkins came along but he didn't want a debate so he just peered at us from the opposition benches and the major argument that was used were staggered me it was the editor of skeptic magazine Michael Shermer he looked at me and he said you know you're an atheist with respect to Artemus Baja and he went through a long boring list of ancient gods ending up with Z for Zeus or said Francis and he said you're an atheist with regard to all those gods and the hundred isn't that fun I am a convinced as you Syst a convinced our water dust and a convinced our ballast so he said his final line was we just go one God further and we get rid of the God of the Bible and that's it so you should be like that you should get rid of that God if you were consistent well I thought how interesting he clearly knows nothing about the ancient Greek gods Roman gods Babylonian gods of the Syrian gods because anybody that studied them will know that there is a profound difference between those gods Verner Yeager brilliant Oxford professor expert in ancient philosophy makes this point he said the ancient gods have one thing in common they are all products of the primeval state of the material universe the God of the Bible created the universe he wasn't a product of it and to put him in the same category is total confusion most of those gods are actually gods of the gaps they rightly disappear on the advance of science science has done a marvelous job in ridding the world of imaginary gods now the question now boils down to do we get rid of the one God who is the creator and sustainer of heaven and earth and we come in a circle right back to this fight historically that God belief in God was the motor that drove science now how did that happen firstly because people didn't fall for the trick of confusing the God who created the universe with a God of the gaps Stephen Hawking does that he thinks I believe in a God of the gaps now I want you to understand this argument very clearly if you think God is simply a God of the gaps then you've got to choose between science and God because that's how you've defined God do you see that see one of the biggest problems that the public debate today is not science but it's the concept of God you're talking about and since many of the leading thinkers believe that people like myself believe in the God of the gaps they're trying to get rid of that and say you've got to choose between that and science I agree with them entirely but that's not the god I believe in the God I believe it is not a God of the gaps he's got of the whole show the bets we don't understand and the bits we do now that's very important to bring us to the next thing because we are all aware that science explains but what the science explain I wasn't told at school that the law of gravity did not tell me what gravity was nobody knows what gravity is Isaac Newton realized that his law of gravity was brilliant didn't tell him what gravity is you see often I hear well Sciences explained that and they say what do you mean by explain tell me what gravity is nobody knows so it hasn't explained what it is so even against its own background we need to be a little bit more humble about what we think scientific explanation is that point one point two is why is the kettle boiling well you know why it's boiling because energy from the lit gas is transmitted through the copper base of the kettle and to the water molecules which are agitated to such an extent some of them are begin to fly off and the pressures built up and it's driving the whistle that tells me the kettles boiling isn't that so no it isn't it's boiling because I would like a cup of tea I glad you laugh because you see the difference between two kinds of explanation the first explanations are scientific explanation the second is what we call an agent explanation and you see we could knock this absurd idea that science of God are opposed by simply thinking about the difference between two kinds of explanation God and science are no more opposed as explanations than Henry Ford is opposed to the law of internal combustion as an explanation for the motorcar I mean I've never met a student or anybody at school from the second form up who would ever dream of thinking that Henry Ford and science of automobile engineering and the law of internal combustion were alternatives and conflicting explanations of the existence of a motorcar and yet and yet and yet some of the brightest minds in the world apparently cannot understand that God doesn't compete with science as explanation because God is a different kind of explanation Richard Dawkins says explicitly he's the same kind of explanation and that is nonsense actually logical nonsense so therefore when Isaac Newton discovered his famous law of gravity he didn't say wonderful I've got a law of gravity I don't need God though he didn't he wrote the book I mentioned the most brilliant book of the history of science hoping that people as he wrote in the front of it hoping that people would as a result of reading had believed in a god you see Newton was like the rest of us the more you understand of engineering the more you can admire the genius of a rolls-royce not the less the more you understand of art and painting the more you can admire the genius of a Picasso and not the less and the more you understand of the universe the more you could admire the genius of the god who did it that way not the less and yet we're constantly told with monotonous regularity that God and science compete his explanations it's simply false it's false to the nature of science and it is false to the nature of God will science ever discover God's fingerprints my fingerprints are fascinating things I don't know whether you've ever studied them but you are aware that you have unique fingerprints absolutely unique you've other things that are unique as in the iris recognition in your eye and so on and so forth and so criminal investigation uses fingerprints to identify people now fingerprints don't tell you everything about a person do they I mean you could study my fingerprints you'd never get to know me very well you might be able to pick me out of a billion people by having a computer analyzed my fingerprints and you know it was made but that's full stop but it's a good start it at least gives you distinguishing features because fingerprints contain information that is unique to you it's information that can be recognized by automatic and robotic machinery and it can compare your fingerprint with other fingerprints in the database so that you are identified by pre-programmed computer autumn eyes machinery and that brings us straight into our information age doesn't it your old computer literate far beyond me I find if you've got a problem with the computer ask a seven-year-old and if he can't do it ask a five-year-old and you probably get it done twice as fast and is staggering how computer literate we are now this is a fascinating thing because you see we've lived to see that life is not as simple as we used to think Darwin thought of a warm little pond and life arising essentially spontaneously that's been given up long ago because we've discovered that in every single one of the ten trillion cells in your body there's a database that's bigger than most databases in the world it's called as you know the DNA code the human genome now the human genome was a very interesting thing it can teach us a lot of things first of all it can teach us that the real problem doesn't lie between science and God because the first director of the human genome project was James Watson who won the Nobel Prize and I met him once and was able to discuss his findings with him he's an atheist a very strong atheist the second director of the human genome project was the present director of the National Institute of Health in the United States his name is Francis Collins he's a Christian they're both at the top of the scientific tree so that should show you very clearly that the problem can't lie between science and God where the problem is ladies and gentlemen is there's a real conflict but it's between two worldviews it's between the worldview of theism belief in God and the worldview of naturalism materialism if you like which is atheistic that's where the conflict is there are scientists on both sides but the human genome can teach us a great deal more because you see we are given to understand often in our science lessons at school that the nature of explanation is always from the simple to the complex we split water up into hydrogen and oxygen we spit salt at the sodium chloride and so on and we get used to this idea of taking a complex thing apart and studying the parts and trying to get some insight on the whole we call that reduction as a methodological reductionism edits it's a habit of thought that you will develop you probably have developed it already when you hit the big problem in life of any kind you tend to try to simplify it and see what aspects it has solve the bits and see if you can get insight on the whole so that explanation then goes from the simple to the complex and we all know of that very ancient notion of Democritus and lucrative and leucippus the father of the atomic theory that the basic ingredients of the universe are very simple they're atoms in empty space and that's all you've got and that's all there is and so the atoms falling through the empty space created galaxies and worlds and in the end life and so on and so forth that's the reductionist explanation it's a bottom-up explanation it's saying everything can be reduced to happens in empty space it's very ancient but it's false and what demonstrates it to be false and you all know it to be false is anything that involves language now as you look up here you see meet Jesus at uni you all understand that don't you perhaps you don't quite yet understand what it means which is why they evangelical unit have arranged a series of fascinating lectures coming up next week but you can understand the words now that's a fascinating process because after all what you're looking at they're just marks and paper aren't they MA et you can make the strokes of the marks but how is if you understand them well of course you know because you separately independently of this particular notice you've learned the English language but now as you look at that the instant thing you perceive is that intelligence has been involved in producing it isn't that so immediately now that Polster probably was produced in an automatic printing machine there may be all kinds of automatic and therefore blind processes working to produce it but you know that behind it intelligences operating don't you because you can understand it now here's the interesting thing I meet many scientists in my life and they recognized this immediately and I have many discussions with them and there was one particular scientist and I got to tell you his story before we go into the question time and a dinner at night and my colleagues he rather embarrassingly told me he was bored by mathematics and he was an atheist and a reductionist and we'd nothing to talk about and we won't have a miserable dinner which is not a very nice way to start dinner so I said oh I said I'm a reductionist two of a kind I explained to what I just explained to you but he said no everything comes down to physics in chemistry so I said right let's do an experiment he said what did the dinner table I said sure this Oxford so so I picked up the menu with said roast chicken Arguelles these five letters so he said what's the problem I said for me none but I said have a go at this you think everything can be reduced to physics and chemistry yes they said okay I said you explained to me the semiotic sub those letters how those marks convey to you the idea of roast you explain that to me in terms of the physics and chemistry of the paper in ink and his wife who was a brave soul she rather too loudly said get her to that if he can he didn't try do you know what he said he said for 40 years I've gone into my lab and Oxford thinking that could be done I was staggered I said half a minute I tried to play devil's advocate which can be very easy for an Irishman you know and I said but physics and chemistry have only been going for five or six hundred years he said it doesn't matter it's not within the power of physics and chemistry to explain the intelligent informational input that is indicated by those letters carrying meaning that's fascinating isn't it he recognized that from a five letter word I then asked him about DNA 3.5 billion letters exactly in the right order and what's the origin of that Oh chance of the laws of nature really there's something going on isn't there well we can look at five letters that instantly in fair intelligent involvement even though many processes may have been involved and turn around and see the longest word that's ever been discovered and described it to chance of the laws of nature why do people do that well I know why they do it they don't do it because that's a scientifically credible extra they they do it because if you raise the alternative if you're raising the god question it's the most powerful fingerprint that God has put in us in every one of us it's more than a fingerprint it contains the information at least part of it that produces you and it points upwards whatever processes natural processes were involved in they're coming together it's word like character it's program like character point to an intelligent input which is why ladies and gentlemen I have no hesitation and saying that when I compared the two worldviews the one that starts with Athens and devoid and ends up with mind as a product of Athens and the void and the view that says in the beginning was the word and the Word was with God the Word was God all things came to be through him and without him nothing came to be that came to be in the beginning was the word fascinating Greek word logos for word means information cold command all this kind of thing that's fascinating because many people you see in my generation and yours think the Bible is nothing to say to a contemporary age yet how did it get this right when the Bible's talking about creation it's simplest language formers and God said let there be light and God said and God said and God said it's a speech at its word creating mass energy in the beginning was the word as John sums up what Genesis has had to say this is brilliant stuff because the Bible is putting its finger as the central issue in the creation of the universe and us on the information question to bang up to date as it could possibly be and that's one of the major things ladies and gentlemen that convinces me we've already found the fingerprints of God but there's such enormous pressure to reject what we can clearly see isn't that Richard Dawkins who wrote a book saying it's terribly terribly terribly tempting to think the universe has been designed and then to say but has only been apparently designed I think it's terribly tempting to think it's designed because it has been designed thank you very much thank you very much professor Linux we look forward to hearing from you more as you answer quench questions that you guys have sent in now remember it's not too late to send in your questions by that phone number that's on the bottom of those pieces of paper do send those questions in look forward to hearing them answered by Professor John Lennox after this now in a moment I'll give you the option to leave before the Q&A but before I do that let me draw your attention once more it's these forms that were left on your seat if you take them out now on one side of the page you'll be able to see that there's information about Jesus week Jesus week is what evangelical students are running next week Jesus week is a debate and a series of talks that will be happening next week all centered around the theme your God now as you can see our debate topic this year is your is your God dead and we will be joined by the president of the Atheist Society of South Australia other talks that we are running during the week include on Tuesday what does your God say about beer and sex and on Thursday is your God the only one particularly if you are a university student here you may have already noticed some of those bright blue jumpers being worn around campus that's because we would like to invite you to all of these talks next week they'll be happening at Union cinema at 1:00 p.m. every day and we would love to see you there now also on the bottom of this same page you can see that there's an opportunity for you to respond we would love your comments about this event so that we can improve them in the future particularly I want to draw your attention to the four check boxes that are there the first box if you'd like to find out more about es you can tick that es stands for evangelical students the student Christian group that is hosting this event the second box is about other events coming up that are related to God and science you can tick this if you would like to explore this issue further we're running various events in the next week to do with this such as a panel involving some Christian Scientists that we'll be discussing this issue there'll also be a book club now they'll be running which will be going through John Lennox's books in a group and allow you to explore these issues in a much smaller smaller and intimate group now the third box is there is if you were intrigued by what Professor John Linux talked about in regards to the God that you talked about till the God of the Bible if you would like to find out more about this god please tick that third box so that we can contact you and work out a way that works best for you to explore that further now these responses are not just for university students and so anyone here can take these and then leave your contact details in the space provided I'll give you a couple of minutes to do that now

Channel: North Terrace Evangelical Students

Views: 28,795

Rating: 4.7567568 out of 5

Keywords: John Lennox (Academic), God (Deity), science, apologetics, Christianity (Religion), University Of Adelaide (College/University), College (TV Genre)

Id: AZQmr4BRg4M

Length: 50min 2sec (3002 seconds)

Published: Fri Aug 15 2014