No reason to believe in many universes…

John Polkinghorne, for instance, himself an eminent quantum theorist, rejects the many-universe interpretation: ‘Let us recognize these speculations for what they are. They are not physics, but in the strictest sense, metaphysics. There is no purely scientific reason to believe in an ensemble of universes. By construction these other worlds are unknowable by us. A possible explanation of equal intellectual respectability—and to my mind greater economy and elegance—would be that this one world is the way it is, because it is the creation of the will of a Creator who purposes that it should be So.’

John Lennox, from God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?, kindle location 1046

Not necessarily statements of science…

What is more, the fact that there are scientists who appear to be at war with God is not quite the same thing as science itself being at war with God. For example, some musicians are militant atheists. But does that mean music itself is at war with God? Hardly. The point here may be expressed as follows: Statements by scientists are not necessarily statements of science. Nor, we might add, are such statements necessarily true; although the prestige of science is such that they are often taken to be so.

John Lennox, from God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?, kindle location 213

They turn out to believe in truth…

For my part I confess to finding it curious that those who claim that there is no such thing as truth expect me to believe that what they are saying is true! Perhaps I misunderstand them, but they seem to exempt themselves from their general rubric that there is no such thing as truth when they are either speaking to me or writing their books. They turn out to believe in truth after all.

John Lennox, from God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?, kindle location 138

A chimp may share 98% of its DNA…

… geneticist Steve Jones sounds a strong cautionary note: ‘A chimp may share 98 percent of its DNA with ourselves but it is not 98 per cent human: it is not human at all—it is a chimp. And does the fact that we have genes in common with a mouse, or a banana say anything about human nature? Some claim that genes will tell us what we really are. The idea is absurd.’

John Lennox, from God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?, kindle location 2012

To use science to justify such dogma…

It is perfectly rational to propose that the universe is indeed without purpose—that what we see is all there is. But to assert that this is so, as Dawkins and Atkins do, is not at all ‘rational’. It is merely a piece of dogma. Indeed, atheism—when you boil it down—is little more than dogma: simple denial, a refusal to take seriously the proposition that there could be more to the universe than meets the eye. To use science to justify such dogma, as these professors do, is a gross misuse of their own trade.

John Lennox, quoted by Colin Trudge in http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/dec/08/society

I am not postulating a God of the Gaps…

I am not postulating a “God of the gaps”, a god merely to explain the things that science has not yet explained. I am postulating a God to explain why science explains; I do not deny that science explains, but I postulate God to explain why science explains.

Richard Swinburne, quoted in God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? by John Lennox. Read more at location 626