Customer Reviews for

God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?

Average Rating 4.5
( 7 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star


4 Star


3 Star


2 Star


1 Star


Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation


  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously
Sort by: Showing all of 7 Customer Reviews
Page 1 of 1
  • Posted July 21, 2011

    Fantastic, but difficult.

    This book is absolutly amazing. It's difficult to read at times because the subject matters are rather tough. However, Lennox does an incredible job defending his faith while maintaining his scientific integrity (he has a triple doctorate). This man has answered the call from the militant atheist such as Hitchins, Dawkins, and Russel.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted May 16, 2011

    more from this reviewer

    A great summary for the scientific argument for God and creation

    The first time I heard of John Lennox was listening online to his debate against Richard Dawkins. Not only was he able to stand up to Dawkins's arguments, but he concluded with a sterling appeal to the resurrection of Jesus Christ as the final proof that God exists and has revealed himself to us. Dawkins responded that he was "disappointed" that Lennox would bring that matter up in a scientific debate, but I was encouraged. Later, hearing Lennox in person speaking in Washington State, I was further impressed by his knowledge, fluency, and ability to explain complex ideas to a popular audience.

    John Lennox is Professor in Mathematics in Oxford and Fellow in Mathematics and the Philosophy of Science at Green Templeton College. In addition to being a leading mathematician and philosopher of science, Lennox is a committed Christian and an outspoken apologist. In addition to debating famous atheists like Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, Lennox speaks to popular audiences to encourage their faith in God and the biblical revelation.

    This recent book presents a strong case for God as the intelligent, powerful Creator of the universe. As an expert in mathematics, including probability and chaos theory, Lennox analyzes and explains the fine tuning of the physical forces and constants of the universe, and the information richness of the genetic code. These facts point to intelligent input. Lennox does not "argue from analogy, but [makes] an inference to the best explanation" (p. 175). This is not a "god of the gaps" argument, where, as science progresses, the need for "god" shrinks. Rather, it is an "atheism of the gaps" argument, as each new scientific advance provides more, not less, evidence for a divine, intelligent Creator.

    The book surveys the major areas of debate-the origin and design of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of the major types of life, and the information-rich content of the genetic code. In each of these areas Lennox documents his statements well, citing leaders in each field. He selects the strongest, not the weakest, argument of his opponents and treats them fairly. In all these diverse subject areas, he emphasizes the issues that relate to his own strength and expertise.

    Near the end of his book Lennox discusses the philosophical contribution of David Hume, who supposedly destroyed the argument for God based on the design found in various creatures. These pages summarize and state well the fallacy of Hume, and the emptiness of modern arguments by atheists who quote him.

    This book is fun to read, even though sometimes the reading is heavy. I recommend it to all who desire to argue for the existence and work of the God of the Bible. It also is helpful to all Christians who have feared that their beliefs somehow are unscientific or unreasonable.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted May 27, 2010

    Understanding the Secular Humanist Argument

    I bought this book hoping to find a "silver bullet" -- an irrefutable argument -- to use to convince my friends who think that science has indeed buried God that their view is wrong. This book does not provide such an argument. Instead, Mr. Lennox masterfully presents the complexity of the arguments of today's secular humanist proponents, along with the subtle flaws and weaknesses in those agruments.
    One needs a good background in classical philosophy as well as in statistics and statistical inferrence to really follow the arguments presented, and I doubt that anyone who believes that science has proved that God is irrelevant will make the effort to follow the arguments presented here. While it is obvious that Mr. Lennox can hold his own in a debate with any of today's secular humanist proponents, winning the debate does not change the mind of one's opponent.
    The answer to the question posed in the title, "Has Science Buried God?" is obviously "No," since, given the evidence presented in this book, any unbiased jury would return a verdict of "Not Proven."

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted December 19, 2009

    Intellectually Stimulating

    In a word - Amazing. Lennox is one of the most intelligent yet down to earth people. A must read.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted June 30, 2009

    Brilliant, well written review of scientific conclusions

    -Lennox lays out a cogent argument from scientific rules that information cannot be derived from inert or biological physical material ... and the origin of this information which is required for natural processes to occur science has yet to answer.
    -The existential implications of what that means is discussed in the epilogue; however this is not within the realm of science to answer and in fact is incapable of answering.
    -For Lennox, science is unable to answer existential questions (pp 176 - 179): "these are things that the natural sciences cannot tell us ... However, as with so many other things beyond the competence of science, this does not mean that there is no evidence". An example not in the book is love: science cannot prove it's existence, it can only observe the evidence of it, but we know it exists.
    -Lennox uses observational scientific evidence to guide discussions on structures that cannot give any other answer than that of being intentionally designed in an irreducible construct that requires other structures to simultaneously exist in order to function. Ergo, evolution being ruled out as to the origin of said structures.
    -Lennox references several former atheist philosophers and scientists as well as those who are theists who have looked at the complexity of biological, chemical, and cosmological structures and have concluded that they could not have evolved. He contrasts those opinions with philosophers and scientists who look at the very same evidence and claim there is nothing to indicate that they did not evolve. As Lennox states, "Both views cannot be right." (p 175).
    -The physical evidence is the same for both camps. So why the difference? Lennox offers an opinion as follows: "... reluctance on the part of some scientists to make a design inference from the existence of information-rich biomolecules has less to do with science than it has to do with the implications of the design inference ... It is, therefore, a worldview issue ... [atheistic] scientists seem to be perfectly happy to make (scientific) design inferences to human or even alien agency; so the difficulty certainly does not lie in our capacity to make design inferences as such." (p 170.)
    -Again, science cannot answer existential questions about its observations. It can only tell us what could not possibly have happened: spontaneous evolution of life from pond chemicals, and the evolution of a simple organism to a more complex one, or of one type of organism to another. The information within chemicals, a simple organism, or a type required to support these theories of converting from one form to another did not exist within any of these three physical entities in order to enable them to change to a different mode of existence. Science dictates that in order for these theories to be true, information would have had to be added to the physical entities. Science dictates that physicality cannot produce additional information on its own that didn't already exist within itself (e.g., mutations and genetic copying errors actually decrease information, not add to it). A bird can grow a longer or shorter beak because it already has the information within it to do so ("micro"-evolution). A bird cannot change into a dinosaur because that would require adding information that it does not have, and a monkey cannot change into a human for the same reason ("macro"-evolution).

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted November 13, 2011

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted December 1, 2012

    No text was provided for this review.

Sort by: Showing all of 7 Customer Reviews
Page 1 of 1