From reading Lennox, he both appreciates some of what Walton says, and strongly disagrees with other issues. He is willing to consider that there may be some validity to the idea of Genesis 1 talking about function, but not that this is ALL that it about, and that it tells us nothing about origins. I appreciate that about Lennox. He identifies both what he agrees with and what he does not rather than dismissing an entire argument.
In reading through The Lost World of Genesis One, I can almost hear Lennox responding to much of what Walton says, particularly about the god of the gaps and other philosophy of science issues.
Well, that is not intended as a shot over the bow to open discussion on that issue in this thread. Maybe there is a more suitable thread to talk about these issues. Now I understand why Lennox stated that he was emboldened as a scientist (and a philosopher of science) to respond to Walton’s textual analysis who as a text analysist delves deeply into science and philosophy.
I’m fully aware the the Galileo affair was not the simplistic church vs science conflict often portrayed.
The big stumbling block, both scientific and theological, was the concept of the earth’s inertia. But the theological implications of upstaging geocentrism was what attracted the attention of the holy office of the inquisition. Galileo anticipated the theological discussion in his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, which is very accessible and remains one of the best treatise concerning the relationship of faith and science.
On the point of Lennox rejecting common ancestry he doesn’t, if memory serves, provide much of an argument for why he rejects it. I’ve read some of his work, and I’ve listened to him in person at Oxford (where he did not broach the topic of common ancestry, or I would have pressed him on it).
Common ancestry is extremely well supported science. It uses the same principles that give you confidence that the New Testament you hold in your hands has an accurate recording of the original autographs. Lennox offers no substantive argument for why I should accept textual criticism in support of the New Testament and reject the same principles as they pertain to human and chimpanzee genomes. He just doesn’t engage the evidence - but rather makes side comments about it from time to time. If he did ever make a substantive argument I’d be happy to engage it.