Return of the God Hypothesis: Breakthroughs in Physics, Cosmology, and Biology Seeking Evidence for the Existence of God

by Stephen C. Meyer

The New York Times bestselling author of Darwin’s Doubt, Stephen Meyer, presents groundbreaking scientific evidence of the existence of God, based on breakthroughs in physics, cosmology, and biology.

Beginning in the late 19th century, many intellectuals began to insist that scientific knowledge conflicts with traditional theistic belief—that science and belief in God are “at war.” Philosopher of science Stephen Meyer challenges this view by examining three scientific discoveries with decidedly theistic implications. Building on the case for the intelligent design of life that he developed in Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt, Meyer demonstrates how discoveries in cosmology and physics coupled with those in biology help to establish the identity of the designing intelligence behind life and the universe. 

Meyer argues that theism—with its affirmation of a transcendent, intelligent and active creator—best explains the evidence we have concerning biological and cosmological origins. Previously Meyer refrained from attempting to answer questions about “who” might have designed life. Now he provides an evidence-based answer to perhaps the ultimate mystery of the universe. In so doing, he reveals a stunning the data support not just the existence of an intelligent designer of some kind—but the existence of a personal God. 

Genres: Science, Religion, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Christian, Theology, Christianity

892 pages, Kindle Edition

Published March 30, 2021

About the author

There is more than one author with this name in the database.

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer received his Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge in the philosophy of science. A former geophysicist and college professor, he now directs the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle. In 2004, Meyer ignited a firestorm of media and scientific controversy when a biology journal at the Smithsonian Institution published his peer-reviewed scientific article advancing intelligent design. Meyer has been featured on national television and radio programs, including The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, CBS’s Sunday Morning, NBC’s Nightly News, ABC’s World News, Good Morning America, Nightline, FOX News Live, and the Tavis Smiley Show on PBS. He has also been featured in two New York Times front-page stories and has garnered attention in other top-national media.

Reviews

[Marcus · Rating 5 out of 5]

I came to this book as an agnostic physician with a relatively strong foundation in the sciences, and some interest in history and philosophy. Having grown up Christian, I drifted away from religion in medical school. There I realized that genetic mutations were common, that any gene could be affected, and that medicine, in a large part, was understanding the relationship between a mutated gene and the given inherited disease or fetal anomaly, many of which were either fatal or severely limiting for the patient. Years of immersion in this study gradually eroded my faith in God, and though I never drifted as far as atheism, I found at some point that I no longer had faith in a benevolent transcendent higher power.

I can't remember where I came across a blurb for this book, but being somewhat curious, and decided to give it a go. Reading the book was like being back in college. Deep science, some history, plenty of philosophy and logic, with hundreds of experts referenced across all disciplines (footnotes included), all linked together and clearly explained by the author, who has plainly made investigating these subjects his life's mission.

And for that I very humbly thank the author, because this book will change the trajectory of my life, to what ultimate degree I'm not certain. The goal of the book was not to "prove" a higher intelligence, but to argue that theism is a better argument for what we see around us, and what we can extrapolate about the beginning of the universe, the fine tuning of the universe (as described by physical laws), the origin of life, and the emerging complexity of life, as compared to purely materialistic/naturalistic explanations. And despite a large amount of skepticism going in, I am happy to say that I found the arguments presented for the most part very convincing.

[Trevor Rolls · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you follow Stephen C. Meyer, then whether you are friend or foe, you likely know what to expect from this book. I do want to try to tailor this review to the person that might not know what to expect, but I also think it only fair to disclose my bias. I have been following Dr. Meyer for some time now, read much of his previous work, and enjoyed several occasions to speak with him through webinar and zoom conferences, so keep that in mind when considering my opinion. Finally, I want you to understand what Meyer is trying to do here, so be aware that my summary will contain some content from the book. While I will try to keep it at a minimum, avoid my review if you direly disapprove of spoilers.

Summary:
While Dr. Meyer presents a sophisticated argument for theistic intelligent design, he does so in a fairly straightforward argumentative format. He starts with background of the areas he will discuss, in two parts. He then offers an explanation of the methodology he will use before applying it to the areas of interest regarding his thesis. From there he considers counterarguments to his points. Finally, he offers his conclusions.

The background begins with sort of a tour of the history and philosophy of science in order to refute the pervasive warfare myth between theism and science. The second part of his background treatment offers the history and current beliefs regarding the origin of the universe, the fine tuning of the universe, and the presence of information in both the origin and explosion of life.

Explaining his methodology and reasoning, Dr. Meyer discusses various modes of evaluation as well as various worldviews and their positions on metaphysical components to reality. From here, Meyer, using the method of abductive reasoning, seeks to show the adequacy and explanatory power of the God hypothesis, that is, theism, as compared to the competing hypotheses of deism, naturalism, and pantheism, to account for the beginning of the universe, the design of the universe, and the design of life.

After applying his methodology in examination of the three main ideas, Dr. Meyer addresses responses, potential refutations, and conjectures on behalf of the positions he claims are inadequate causally and explanatorily regarding his main thesis points. Some of these include chemical evolution, RNA world, evolutionary biologists (theistic and atheistic), various multiverse theories, quantum theories, and more.

Finally, Meyer moves to his conclusion, which is as the title suggests, that the God hypothesis has come full circle and is, once again, a viable and (in his opinion) superior explanation for the previously named phenomena.


Critique:
As I am fond of, I will offer my critique in a, “The good, the bad, and the ugly” format.

First, the good. Meyer is a storyteller. He doesn’t simply make assertions, such as, say, “The big bang suggests a big banger.” Rather, he will tell you the whole story of the big bang, how it was arrived at, what it means, why it is still around, who likes it, who doesn’t like it, and all such else. Then, he will, in light of those facts, explain the philosophical implications. This is just an example, but this is his style. He is very thorough. On that note, if you look at the bibliography, you will see over 500 sources. Again, he doesn’t just make claims, he presents whole accounts. When you read his work, you really get the feeling that you are getting a detailed and fair treatment of an issue or topic.

This leads to the bad. Sometimes, it is just too much for the average layperson to grasp. I did okay with this book because I am familiar with most of the material, but if a person is just learning about these topics for the first time, it can seem a little overwhelming. In his previous works, I had to, at times, skip through some of the more technical explanations and move to the parts in the chapters that were summaries.

The ugly. Dr. Meyer is on the bleeding edge of development in a philosophical and scientific turf war (or arms race if you prefer). He did a great job refuting the myth that science and religion were at odds in times past, but he is completely aware of the war of the worldviews currently in play. This is an ugly subject, and while he was ever the gentleman in his presentations, I expect a deluge of ad hominem attacks and invective from those who hate him and his position.

Conclusion:
If you are even at all interested in the relationship between science and religion, buy this book. If you don’t like having your presuppositions and worldview challenged, don’t buy this book. If you are open and objective, you will be pressed and stretched, whether theist, deist, or naturalist. If you buy the book and don’t like what it says, all of the claims are sourced and open for investigation.

[Aberdeen · Rating 5 out of 5]

A brilliant book. It is a journey not only through three fields of science—cosmology, physics, and biology—but the history of science and philosophy of science, complete with a chapter on “how to assess a metaphysical claim” and an introduction to Bayesian probability analysis. If that sentence makes this book sound like a collection of horribly obtuse academic jargon, I beg your and Meyer’s forgiveness. Yes, there are a plethora of technical terms and deep dives into complex scientific and philosophical ideas, but Meyer balances all that beautifully with his clear writing, personal anecdotes, and delightful ink illustrations (courtesy of Ray Braun, not Meyer). You can tell he has spent many years in the classroom, because he has a knack for finding just the right analogy to explain a slippery, abstract concept.

Did I understand everything in this book? Emphatically not, especially the section on quantum cosmology. However, Meyer provides accessible summaries to each chapter and to each section in each chapter, ruthlessly tethering every study and explanation back to his central claim. Sometimes I felt like he overexplained how each argument bolstered his main point, but ultimately I appreciated his precision and repetition because as the book progressed (all 400+ pages of it), it was easy to lose track of the different threads and the conclusions he had already argued for.

After reading this book, I read some reviews of it, as I am wont to do when I finish books. It makes me laugh a bit when some people bring up a study or two that Meyer didn't mention, as if that debunks his entire argument. The power of this book is that there are so many arguments from so many different fields that it would take several journals’ worth of studies to amass enough opposing information to weaken the overall thesis. You may not agree with a specific point—maybe you disagree with how he explains information theory, or you think the RNA world hypothesis is more plausible than he credits it—but the sheer volume and diversity of arguments should be enough to give you pause before throwing out the overarching claim.

And what is that overarching claim, the thesis of the book? It is not just what Meyer’s other books have argued for, that the scientific evidence points to an intelligent designer as the most plausible explanation for the existence of life and the origin of the universe, but that theism specifically—a transcendent, personal God—is the best explanation of the origin of the universe and life. As he puts it in his introduction:

I found myself briefly describing three key scientific discoveries that I thought jointly supported theistic belief—what I call “the return of the God hypothesis”: (1) evidence from cosmology suggesting the material universe had a beginning; (2) evidence from physics showing that from the beginning the universe has been “finely tuned” to allow for the possibility of life; and (3) evidence from biology establishing that since the beginning large amounts of new functional genetic information have arisen in our biosphere to make new forms of life possible—implying, as I have argued before, the activity of a designing intelligence.

After describing the history of Western scientific discovery (and noting how theism originally propelled it, instead of stifling it), Meyer moves into each of these three areas, systemically laying out the data we have and comparing the explanations for it from naturalism and theism (primarily—he also addresses the explanations offered by pantheism, deism, and panspermia). In these discussions, he introduces and then uses the logical method of inference to the best explanation and Bayesian probability analysis. I had never heard of the latter, and it almost felt too simplistic, like when academics slap a fancy label on an everyday term everybody already knows and understands. However, that's the point: in everyday situations, we reason according to the Bayesian model without even thinking about it. It's just common sense. We lose this easy, almost instinctual logic when we start thinking about such abstract, distant topics like the origin of the universe (and though they are abstract and distant, they also have great bearing on our deeply held beliefs, making it even harder to assess them analytically).

I’m not going to discuss all Meyer’s arguments because there are simply too many, but some of the points I found especially fascinating were his critique of why the laws of physics cannot create anything; his distinction between intelligent design and the God-of-the-gaps fallacy; and his argument for why theism offers more causally adequate explanations for the origin of the universe than deism. I appreciated how he emphasized that none of this offers of proof for God’s existence—we can do more prove that then we can prove he does not exist. That is not the point. The point is to see which provides the best explanation and to assess the strength of the evidence for believing in God.

I also appreciated Meyer’s tone towards those he disagrees with. He is never inflammatory or belittling, and while he roundly condemns many arguments, he is sympathetic towards their proponents. He often will quote them admitting the concerns or doubt that they have—which, while that bolsters his argument, also demonstrates an attitude of fairness in trying to accurately portray someone’s position. Meyer’s human civility and rigorous rationality are both noble traits that embody the ideal of science and academia in general.

One of the most compelling parts of the book for me was the multitude of quotes by scientists who admit that they do not want there to be a divine intelligent designer—admissions that our prior metaphysical beliefs inevitably impact our scientific convictions. There simply is no way to divorce the two (although there are reasoning tools that can help us think as logically as possible about both physical and metaphysical claims, as Meyer uses in this book). Whether we like this or not, we must at least be honest about it. We will get nowhere until we admit how our metaphysical beliefs influence which scientific questions we choose to explore and which possible solutions we let ourselves consider.

This is a book I will buy and reread. I'm no scientist, and a few sections went over my head. The strength of every argument in it is not equal, and I'm sure as I reread it I will question some parts. But as I said earlier, the quantity of the different arguments and the logical force of the overarching claim will make it hard to substantially weaken the God hypothesis.


Thus, theism posits the one kind of entity—a free personal agent—that can initiate new sequences of cause and effect without itself being caused to do so and without, at the same time, undermining confidence in either human rationality or the intelligibility of the physical world. In so doing, it resolves the explanatory puzzle that confronts naturalism as the result of the evidence that supports the universe having a beginning in time.

~

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." ~ Robert Jastrow, on the Big Bang theory

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a philosopher of science, rather than an astrophysicist, Stephen Meyer provides a different take on some Big Questions. That is, he's well trained with a PhD from Cambridge--following a first career in digital applications of geology--to tackle creative intelligence as the most logical explanation for the origins of this universe. After surveying the often-caricatured story of how science and belief before the nineteenth-century were typically combined in the pursuit of knowledge in the Western world, he narrates various explanations of the Big Bang, various astronomical theories past and present for how we can best account for why we exist 13.78 billion years later, and how fine tuning of a complicated and irregular set of calculations to enable a universe capable of generating life and sustaining stability points to an intelligent designer. That's a better term than God for the gist of his argument, but naming the hypothesis otherwise isn't nearly as attention-getting. As a non-scientist, I found parts tough going. But as a skilled professor, Meyer shares helpful lessons he crafted for his students, which help the general reader grasp considerably complex models of thought and of mathematical reasoning.

I wanted more on his objections to the kind of argument Brian Greene in Until the End of Time (see my review) posits: that out of a perpetual 'quantum foam,' space time's continuum popped into being as an inevitable result of random fluctuations in the vacuum, which generated wave movements leading to the initial explosion of our cosmos. By comparison, Meyer doesn't delve as deeply into this counter-proposal as I would have expected. He addresses it rather late in the book, and replies that the acceptance of an intentional force outside the constraints of the laws of nature best serves as the parsimonious and sensible first cause for all we know.

Despite the inevitable density of the core material, the excellent illustrations go far to teach the reader essential concepts pithily. Without visual aids, the intellectual support needed for Meyer to build his case wouldn't have been nearly as grounded for laymen. I like reading challenging studies on how our universe began, and the perspective from a Christian thinker who's able to sift evidence, answer his critics with tact and generosity, and demonstrate a careful thesis in clear prose makes the time invested well worth it.

[Zak Boston · Rating 2 out of 5]

If you are like me, with a spiritual seeking revivified by the psychological arguments about God from Victor Frankl, Carl Jung, or jordan peterson, you will be fantastically disappointed. When I realized Meyer would spend the entire book resorting to a classic “god of the gaps” angle of argumentation, my jaw bounced off the floor. Meyer is a great writer and logician, like many literal Christian apologists, but also shares the same source of deeply unwise “insights”.

This book entirely too long for the quality and depth of argument the author produces. It is replete with strawman, argument from ignorance, moving the goalpost, and a host of other fallacious modes of reasoning.

[Brian · Rating 1 out of 5]

I'm sorry, but none of his refutations are evidence for a "God," and further, why would he specifically limit his argument to the Judeo-Christian god? I mean Bayesian reasoning would suggest that you open your theist argument to any conception of an interventionist diety, nor for that matter does it imply monotheism as an infinite god is a being without a beginning or end then why only one? Why not 15 gods? Or 15000 infinite perfect beings, all who had a hand in creation and have one in ongoing temporal reality (but are somehow outside it)? Moreover, he is guilty of many of the charges he makes including that of straw man arguments.

[Debbie Wentworth Wilson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Before I review the book, I want to confess that I am not a scientist, nor strong in science and math. If I don't word statements in the review quite scientifically, it is my fault, not Dr. Meyer's. Terms like quarks, fermion, abduction, cyclic ekpyrotic model, inflationary string landscape hypothesis, gravitinos, imaginary time, and singularity leave me confused despite Dr. Meyer's explanation.

"We are living in an age where there is a great revival of natural theology taking place. That revival of natural theology is taking place not on the whole among theologians, who have lost their nerve in that area, but among the scientists." John Polkinghorne, quoted on 163.

I appreciated this book despite not understanding the more technical information. Meyer starts with why and how modern science originated in the Judeo-Christian West, rather than in other areas of the world. The belief in a God who was rational and benevolent lent early scientists the idea that nature would be understandable and could be studied. Many early scientists, such as Newton, Boyle, Bacon, Descartes, and Kepler, were staunch believers in God.

Meyer then goes on to explain the reasons for many scientists challenging the theistic premise of science, but their still building on the foundational ideas. He takes it step by step with one challenge building on another. As a philosopher of science, he approaches the philosophical discussion historically, dispassionately, and logically.

The three areas that he believes most clearly support the idea of a theistic source are the origin of the universe, the fine tuning of the universe, and the origin of life, particularly the origin of information in the DNA of every living creature. He describes how scientists ascertained that the universe had a beginning through physics and math, leading to the theory of the Big Bang. This was devastating to many scientists in the Twentieth century, including Eistein, who ascribed to an immortal universe because a beginning required a cause. Many of the scientific efforts to avoid the idea of a beginning have led to ideas that challenge the reliability of science and of believing our own minds. Meyer uses logic and the challenges of other scientists to question their assumptions and their findings. (I have wondered for years how some science required observation, measurement, experimentation, and repeatability while other types of science relied on logic and math where observation, measurement, testing, and repeatability were impossible. Meyer explains.)

I was already aware that life on earth depended on a number of characteristics such as our placement in the Milky Way, the size of our moon, the availability of water, the earth's being a rocky planet rather than a gas planet, the unique blend of gases making up our air, and around fifteen other understandable parameters. Meyers goes into the precise fine tuning of the cosmological constant, "the hyper-exponential fine tuning of the initial distribution of mass-energy," and the precise masses of quarks. He presents several such precise measurements and the extremely small tolerances that are required for our existence., indicating that a Mind to measure, plan, and prepare these numerous fine tolerances makes more sense than blind chance.

Third, Meyer points out that the discovery of information in DNA raises the question of where that information comes from. Every living cell contains vast amounts of information that remind many scientists of very advanced computer code. Darwin posited natural selection as the source of changes between different types of animals, but he knew nothing of DNA, nor did he offer a suggestion for the origin of the first cell. Meyer points out that remains in the fossil record indicate an explosion of different life forms during the Cambrian period, rather than the gradual change due to mutation that Darwin believed. In that brief time period, the number of mutations to change life forms could not have arisen.

Toward the end of the book, Meyer discusses the objections that other scientists have raised or probably will raise to his assertions and his responses.

I especially appreciated his historical approach to the questions of origins, rather than an approach heavy on formulae. He includes formulae but uses words to explain them. I also liked his chapter on why these questions are important and how he struggled with these questions as a teenager, even despairing about the uselessness of life. Meyer includes diagrams, pictures, notes, and an index, a bibliography. This is a well thought out scientific approach, not a theological approach. Although I am not an Old Age creation believer, I benefited from this book.

"To the hard-line physicist, the multiverse may not be entirely respectable, but it is at least preferable to invoking a Creator. Indeed, anthropically inclined physicists like Susskind and Weinberg are attracted the multiverse precisely because it seems to dispense with God as the explanation of cosmic design." Bernard Carr, quoted on 345

"So long as the universe had a beginning, we would suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end; it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator." Dr. Stephen Hawking, quoted on 350

One thing that becomes very evident in this book is the reason that many scientists are so insistent on pursuing a materialistic approach to science is their own hostility to the idea of a Creator. The idea of a Creator carries with it the idea of accountability to that Creator. It is better in their minds to believe the ideas that do away with the reliability of science and the human ability to reason and pursue knowledge than to accept that a Creator may have started it all.

[Kristjan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book, albeit from the aspect of somebody that didn't need much convincing. It starts with a quick review of the "war" between science and faith, pointing out how religion (specifically Christianity) helped jump start what eventually becomes the scientific method, the foundation of modern science today. Then it moves into a discussion [in Part II] on the improbability of life anywhere in the universe if the conditions for life were not so finely tuned, suggesting the existence of intelligent design (very similar to Schroeder's Science of God, with more detail and better support).

Unfortunately the bulk of the argument in support of the "God Hypothesis" realistically stops there ... without definitive proof of Divine Creator, the author then advances the idea that Intelligent Design is the most probable hypothesis ... and he does this by developing poorly constructed strawman arguments to undermine materialism/naturalism, pantheism, panspermia (aliens ... which IMHO was never a true contender for intelligent life on earth) in Part III. Seriously ... I am already a believer and even I wasn't convinced here. I really had a hard time pushing through this part.

Sadly it just gets more incoherent as the books goes on. I may not have a PhD; however, I do have formal training in thermodynamics and information theory and I really don't think the author gets these right ... or else he just does an abysmal job with his explanation; either way it makes it difficult to trust his portrayal of the science as accurate. By the end it feels like the author is trying hard to insert a square peg into a round hole ...

I was given this free advance reader copy (ARC) ebook at my request and have voluntarily left this review.

#TheReturnoftheGodHypothesis #NetGalley

[Nat · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this book, Meyer finally steps beyond cautiously arguing for the presence of design, to finally seeking to identify the designer. Meyer's arguments constitute an updated and scientifically rigorous reformulation of the cosmological and teleological arguments, examining the origin of the universe, the fine-tuning it displays, and the evidence for further intervention in the bringing forth of living creatures. Meyer persuasively argues these facts combined are explained satisfactorily by only one explanation: theism.
The book is very long. Coping with the science was fine but those without a background in university physics may struggle, though Meyer explains all the concepts well. There are substantial sections which repeat points from his previous books, which has its advantages, meaning those with less time can just read this book rather than having to read his two others, however, it did significantly increase the reading time, and in general sometimes it feels that Meyer lacks the discipline to know what to leave out of his books... in fairness, there are much worse faults to have.
The sections dealing with the counter-arguments offered by scientists like Krauss and Hawking (e.g. quantum cosmology) are excellently detailed, very clear, and present a forceful argument.
Meyer's work is a powerful assault on scientific naturalism and atheism. The only problem is in its rigour and comprehensiveness it will not be accessible to most of the audiences that need to hear the message the most.

[The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote of La Mancha · Rating 5 out of 5]

In the 19th century, the scientific consensus was that God was not needed to explain the universe because the universe had always existed. That the universe had always existed went back to the ancient Greeks. Even St Thomas Aquinas was careful to construct his 5 proofs for the existence of God on this supposition.


But things changed in the 20th century, and science has now given us more reason to believe in God than ever before. That many people don't realize this only demonstrates that recent scientific findings have not yet seeped into the popular imagination. 


What follows is a low resolution snapshop of the three most important ideas in the book. Please read the book for a more precise presentation. 


1) The Big Bang


Contributing to the discovery of the "Big Bang" was a Belgian Catholic priest by the name of Georges Lemaître. That the universe had a beginning was incoherent to the leading scientists of the day who were prejudiced against such ideas. Nevertheless, Albert Einstein and others soon came to accept the theory.  


Astronomers had noticed that galaxies in every quadrant of the sky are moving away from us. This can be known by observing the redness in the light from distant galaxies. We can then extrapolate back to a time when all of the universe was condensed into a singularity. But if the universe, and time itself, had a beginning, then an explanation for that beginning is required. 


Wanting to avoid God as an explanation, some scientists posited the "Big Crunch." Perhaps the universe will eventually stop expanding and contract back into itself. There may then be an infinite series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches, and the universe has always existed after all. 


But this theory was disproven when it was discovered that the rate at which the universe is expanding is not decelerating but accelerating. Therefore, there will be no Big Crunch. 


Perhaps there are bubble universes instead, or Big Bangs within Big Bangs. Perhaps our universe exploded out of another universe, which exploded out of another universe in turn, and so on for infinity. However, we have no way of confirming the existence of these other universes, and one may just as well believe in God. 


2) The Incredible Fine Tuning of the Universe for Life


In recent decades, scientists have discovered that the physical parameters of the universe are finely tuned for life. For example, if the force of gravity were even slightly weaker, then there would be no molecules because everything would have spread apart after the Big Bang without coming together to form anything. But if the force of gravity were even slightly stronger, then life would still not be possible because everything would have become conflated. As it is, the force of gravity is finely tuned for life, and there are a number of other such parameters that demonstrate the same remarkable quality. 


In fact, the chances that the physical parameters of the universe would be finley tuned for life are even greater than the chances of selecting a single atom from all of the atoms in the universe by chance. To say that we just got lucky is not an adequate explanation. 


Perhaps a multiverse exists, and there are a near infinite number of alternate universes. Although the vast majority would not be finely tuned for life, we just happen to live in one that is.


However, if these alternate universes came into existence independley, then we are left with the same improbable chances that any one of them would be finely tuned for life. Therefore, there must be a "universe generating machine" that spits out alternate universes with differing physical parameters one after another. Eventually, it would have to spit out a universe where life is possible. 


We are now left with two expanations: Either God exists or a multiverse exists. Occam's razor says that we should accept whichever theory is the simplest. Although we cannot "see" God, much less can we see a near infinite number of alternate universes.


3) The Cambrian Explosion 


Darwin's theory postulated a gradual evolution from lower to more complex lifeforms, and he hoped that the fossil record would eventually prove him right. However, it has not. During the Cambrian explosion (approximately 541 million years ago), a large number of species suddenly appeared in the fossil record with no trace of their earlier incarnations. Perhaps their earlier incarnations were boneless?


Fast forward to the 1950's, and Watson and Crick became the first scientists to map the structure of DNA. (It was another Catholic priest, an Augustinian friar by the name of Gregor Mendel, who had become the father of genetics in the previous century).  


As it tuned out, the DNA present in all cells was infinitely more complicated than previously imagined. It was one thing to think that natural selection would cause one species to adapt to a new climate until it's features changed accordingly. But it was another thing to imagine that the complex structure of a single cell, DNA and all, could fashion itself out of some primordial soup by chance. 


Perhaps the first cell was deposited on earth by aliens from distant galaxies? This theory is called "panspermia" and is taken seriously by some scientists who want to avoid the God hypothesis. But instead of answering the question of origins, it merely pushes the problem further back. How did the alien race originate?


Moreover, mutations alone do not explain the drastic differences that exist between species. Just as random changes would almost always ruin a computer program, causing it to crash, so too would random mutations almost always ruin a DNA sequence, resulting in nothing sustainable. Moreover, the age of the universe (13.9 billion years) would not allow for mutations alone to account for incredible diversity of life that exists in the world. There simply has not been enough time for that. 


Again, we are left with God as the best explanation. This is not a "God of the gaps," but an inference to the best explanation. If an explorer were to stumble upon ancient ruins and be dumbfounded, it would not be a "God of the gaps" fallacy to infer the existence of an ancient civilization, neverminding that the civilization was unknown. In the same way, when we stumble across the incredible fine tuning of the universe for life and the amazing complexities of DNA, we infer the existence of a creative mind because that is how we account for such improbable ordered complexity in everyday life. 

[Carmel Attard · Rating 5 out of 5]

Most modern scientists bend over backwards separating God from science, so I was glad to see Meyer desisting from his noncommittal stance (in previous books) regarding the ‘Designer.’ He shows how, historically, science shifted from ‘God-driven’ to ‘God-excluding.’ Yet, in his book ‘The God Delusion’ (p.82), self-declared atheist Richard Dawkins writes, “The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question, even if it is not in practice … a decided one.” I agree with Dawkins here, and we should accept his challenge—as this book does admirably. “Attack is the best form of defense.” In this book’s prologue, Meyer laments, “All this high-profile science-based skepticism about God has percolated into the popular consciousness.” (p.10 of 892) He ends up dwarfing both Stephen Hawking and Dawkins. He shows Hawking often confused theory with reality (p.651), and he makes Dawkins eat his own words (that the universe exhibits no design) because throughout this book, he shows, over and over, that there is intelligent design both in the universe and life.
Main Theme
Meyer backs his ‘return of the God hypothesis’ with “(1) evidence from cosmology suggesting the material universe had a beginning; (2) evidence from physics showing that from the beginning the universe has been ‘finely tuned’ to allow for the possibility of life; and (3) evidence from biology establishing that since the beginning large amounts of new functional genetic information have arisen in our biosphere to make new forms of life possible.” (p.13)
Causes versus Laws
With impeccable logic, Meyer (a philosopher of science) clarifies, “Causes and scientific laws are not the same thing. Causes are typically particular events … that precede other events and meet specific logical and contextual criteria. Laws, by contrast describe general relationships between different types of events or variables.” (p.564) For example, the ‘law of momentum conservation’ describes how a ball behaves after it’s hit by another. But the law doesn't create the balls nor cause their initial motion: both must exist beforehand. Great scientists like Lawrence Krauss and Hawking confuse these two concepts.
Methodology
Meyer doesn’t try to prove God’s existence logically through ‘deductive arguments’ (p.372), he uses ‘abductive methods’: “inferring past conditions or causes from present clues” (p.284). In his book ‘On the Origin of Species,’ Charles Darwin used similar logic to propose his ‘theory of evolution.’ He considered how ‘breeding’ could improve certain characteristics of domestic animals and concluded that, given much more time (extrapolating), ‘natural selection’ could produce new species. Indeed, “Philosopher of physics Robin Collins … argues … we should prefer hypotheses ‘that are natural extrapolations of what we already know about the causal powers of various kinds of entities.’” (p.514)
Moreover, quoting Dawkins’s ‘River out of Eden’ (p.133), “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose … nothing but blind, pitiless indifference,” Meyer agrees, in principle, that our observations of nature should reflect what to expect its ‘source’ to be like (p.345).
Considering the universe’s fine-tuning and the large amount of information in living organisms, Meyer points out, “We have observed intelligent agents (and only intelligent agents) producing highly improbable systems … that exemplify a set of functional requirements, whether finely tuned Swiss watches, digital computers, engines, recipes, [books,] or coded messages.” (p.634) Consequently, Meyer posits an ‘intelligent agent’ as the universe’s and life’s ‘only’ possible cause.
Universe’s Origin
(1) Steady State: Matter and energy were thought to be eternal; so scientists didn’t need to postulate a ‘creator’ (p.82).
(2) Big-Bang Theory: This implies the universe had a beginning; so something ‘external’ must have started it: it couldn’t have created itself (p.21).
(3) Oscillating Universe: Only an oscillating universe could be both eternal and have a ‘beginning.’ But by the ‘second law of thermodynamics,’ the ‘entropy’ of an isolated system must always increase. This precludes an ‘eternally’ oscillating universe since the previous cycles would be more efficient and therefore of shorter and shorter duration: again implying a beginning (p.163).
Universe’s Fine-Tuning
Many scientists confirm the universe is balanced on a knife edge (p.771 n.33). In his article ‘The Universe: Past and Present Reflections,’ astrophysicist Fred Hoyle (a former atheist) wrote, “A common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics as well as with chemistry and biology.” (pp.216-17) Not only is our universe fine-tuned for life, it’s also “a universe designed for discovery” (p.767 n.11).
(1) Anthropic Principle: This is a circular argument, unworthy of an intelligent person: unless one assumes the existence of a ‘multiverse’ (see below).
(2) Starry Universe: According to mathematical physicist Roger Penrose, the odds against a ‘starry’ universe, as opposed to a ‘black-hole’ universe, are 1010123 or 10^(10^123) to 1 (p.235). This number is unimaginably large: it’s 1 followed by 10123 (or 10^123) zeros; there aren’t enough elementary particles in the universe (1080=10^80) to represent just the zeros of this number. Stars (like the sun) are absolutely necessary for life to survive or even exist: life’s very chemicals (like carbon & oxygen) are formed on stars.
(3) Cosmological Constant: This “represents the energy density of space that contributes to the outward expansion”; it’s fine-tuned to about 1 part in 10120 (10^120) or 1 followed by 120 zeros (pp.237-38).
(4) Inflation: Meyer annotates, “Physicists first proposed inflationary cosmology to explain several puzzling features of the universe … [like] its relative homogeneity especially in the temperature of the cosmic background radiation [and] the flatness of the universe.” (p.498) It turned out to be more of a headache: he observes, “The universe-generating mechanism in inflationary cosmology … requires more fine-tuning than it was proposed to explain.” (p.518) We have no evidence of an ‘inflation field,’ but it supported the ‘multiverse.’
Life’s Origin
In his book ‘Signature in the Cell,’ Meyer shows, “The presence of roughly 500 or more bits of specified information reliably indicates intelligent design in a prebiotic context.” (p.776 n.50)
(1) Proteins: There, he also shows, “The probability of producing even a single functional protein of modest length (150 amino acids) by chance alone in a prebiotic environment … [is] 1 chance in 10164 [(10^164) or 1 followed by 164 zeros]. … Even if every event in the entire history of the universe … were devoted to producing combinations of amino acids of a given length … the number of combinations thus produced would still represent … less than one out of a trillion trillion [1024=10^24]—of the total number of possible amino-acid combinations corresponding to a functional protein … of that given length.” (pp.271-72)
(2) DNA: “In DNA,” Meyer states, “No chemical bonds link bases … in the message-bearing axis of the molecule. … The same kind of chemical bonds link the different nucleotide bases to the sugar-phosphate backbone of the molecule. … These two features of the molecule ensure that any nucleotide base can attach to the backbone at any site with equal ease.” (p.276) Meyer rules out chemical/physical affinity: “Chemistry and physics alone could not produce information any more than ink and paper could produce information in a book.” (p.284)
(3) RNA: Most evolutionary biologists propose life’s starting from RNA ‘replicators’ that eventually evolved to eukaryotic cells. There’s a lot of hype concerning this ‘RNA-world hypothesis.’ "However," Meyer writes, “Attempts to enhance the limited catalytic properties of RNA molecules in ‘ribozyme-engineering’ experiments have inevitably required extensive investigator manipulation, thus simulating, if anything, the need for intelligent design.” (p.281)
Chemists John Sutherland, Matthew Powner, and Béatrice Gerland successfully synthesized a pyrimidine ribonucleotide starting with several simple chemical compounds. Meyer comments, “Not only did this study fail to address the problem of getting nucleotide bases into functionally specified sequences, but to the extent it succeeded in producing biologically relevant constituents of RNA, the study illustrated the indispensable role of intelligence in generating such chemistry.” (p.471)
Biochemists Tracy Lincoln and Gerald Joyce claim to have created a self-replicating RNA molecule. Meyer comments, “Their version of ‘self-replication,’ … amounted to nothing more than joining two sequence-specific premade halves together. More significantly … [they] intelligently arranged the base sequences in these RNA chains.” (pp.471-72) It’s amazing how biologists look at their pathetic achievements through a magnifying glass and clutch at straws.
Moreover, “RNA-world advocates offer no possible explanation how primitive RNA replicators might have evolved into modern cells.” (p.281)
Evolution
Meyer reminds us, “Darwin’s theory of biological evolution did not explain, or attempt to explain, how the first life … might have arisen.” (p.264)
Biologists noticed, “Microevolutionary changes … merely use or express existing genetic information, while the macroevolutionary change necessary to assemble new organs or whole body plans requires the production of new genetic information.” (p.303) This “challenged a key tenet of neo-Darwinian synthesis, namely, the idea that small-scale microevolutionary changes can be extrapolated to explain large-scale macroevolutionary innovations.” (p.303) “Major … variations … inevitably produce dysfunction, deformities, or even death. Only minor variations would be viable and therefore heritable.” (p.296)
(1) Cambrian Explosion: Meyer states, “Although the Cambrian explosion of animals … is especially striking, it is far from the only ‘explosion’ of new living forms. … Many other groups appear abruptly in the fossil record.” (p.295) A recent study on the genetic diversity of animal phyla, confirmed, “internal genomic changes were as important as external factors in the emergence of [the Cambrian explosion] animals” (p.808 n.36) It’s not just a rewiring of the developmental gene regulatory networks (dGRNs); besides, any minor tweaking of dGRNs proved catastrophic.
(2) Fossil Record: Meyer continues, “The fossil record … documents the origin of major innovation in biological form and function. These episodes … often occur abruptly or discontinuously.” (p.295) Then they disappear just as suddenly: indeed, ‘geological time’ refers to the presence of certain fossils in various eras. In his book ‘On the Origin of Species’ (pp 396–97), Darwin admits, “To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.” (p.776 n.3)
Multiverse
This is fantasy, not science; ‘theoretically,’ we can never access these universes: it’s a hypothesis that cannot be tested. What kind of science is that? It’s blind faith! This concept was invented to make sense of the ‘Anthropic Principle.’
String Theory
This is much-ado-about-nothing—a bankrupt hypothesis. In his book ‘The Trouble with Physics’ (p.270), theoretical physicist Lee Smolin (who originally believed in it) writes, “String theorists … have no idea what it really is.” String theory tried to reconciling general relativity with quantum mechanics (p.811 n.11). It proposes 101000 (10^1000 or 1 followed by 1,000 zeros) solutions to its equations: thus giving some support to the ‘multiverse’ (p.505).
Conclusion
This book is extremely well researched, delving deep into science and philosophy: some sections might be too technical for the average reader. It’s excellent at integrating science and religion: an ideal textbook for advanced religion classes. Two concepts, I found, most interesting:
(1) A ‘deistic’ proposal for the universe’s and life’s origin doesn’t cut it ‘scientifically’: only a ‘theistic’ explanation does. So God was (probably still is) personally involved in directing our existence (p.447): he’s not just an absentee landlord. Meyer argues, “If biological information arose well after the beginning of the universe and did so by intelligent design … that would seem to suggest a designing intelligence acting well after the beginning of time.” (p.433)
(2) ‘Intelligent design’ is not just a lazy cop-out for yet-unexplained phenomena—a ‘god-of-the-gaps.’ It’s scientifically and philosophically the best explanation—to the ‘hands-down’ exclusion of all other materialistic explanations—probably including any future materialistic explanations. The scientific ‘gaps’ stem from a ‘dogmatic’ assumption that only materialistic explanations count. Since Dawkins opines that whether God exists is a scientific question, if, after considering the universe’s ‘total probabilistic resources’, the odds against something happening naturally or by chance are astronomically high, one must consider divine intervention.
Finally, Meyer’s candid wish against theism (p. 671), gives more credence to his hypothesis.

[Lynda · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a most difficult book to read but I found the correlation between the creation of the universe and explanations of its existence through scientific explanations and faith based thought extremely interesting.
The book, though some will think slow and divisive, is actually something to ponder.
Even science itself has begun to believe that there's more to the creation than mathematical formulas.
Certainly, it is a book to be read and reread.
Thank you NetGalley, publisher and author for the opportunity to read and review the e-ARC. It took much longer than anticipated, it's quite deep.
#NetGalley #TheReturnoftheGodHypothesis

[Daniella · Rating 4 out of 5]

Return of the God Hypothesis - Book Review ✨🪐

I confess this was not an easy read. Especially towards the end there, I was struggling to wrap my mind around all these incredibly complex scientific concepts, theories, and formulas. So much so that I had to skim over some pages here and there for my own sanity 🫣.

I have tremendous respect and admiration for Stephen C. Meyer. The Lord has blessed him with a truly incredible scientific mind that I absolutely adore getting a glimpse of it through his speeches and writing.

He prefaces his book by saying that he is not attempting to “prove”, as such, the existence of God. Rather, he lays out the evidence (quite overwhelming evidence, might I add) on how the God hypothesis provides a more solid explanation for the universe than the other hypotheses out there—namely, the more common worldviews and hypotheses upheld by the New Atheist movement, views which have been quite prevalent in the scientific community for the last few decades.

Meyer lays out the ideologies within the New Atheist movement and counteracts the claims of pantheism, materialism, naturalism, exotic naturalism (which includes theories like the multiverse), and deism—not with ad hominem attacks directed to the New Atheists, but with tried and true scientific evidence and formulas. I found his argument for the design of life particularly compelling, specifically on how naturalism and materialism do not provide a persuasive case for cosmological fine tuning.

Meyer writes, “… No intelligent being within the cosmos that arose after the beginning of the cosmos could be responsible for the fine tuning of the laws and constants of physics that made its existence and evolution possible. Such an intelligent agent “inside” the universe might reconfigure or move matter and energy around in accord with the laws of nature. Nevertheless, no such being subject to those laws could possibly change the constants of physics, simply by changing the material state of the universe. Similarly, no intelligent being arising after the beginning of the universe could have set the initial conditions of the universe upon which its evolution and existence would depend. It follows that an immanent intelligence (an extraterrestrial alien, for instance) fails to qualify as a casually adequate explanation for the origin of the cosmic fine tuning.”

This argument follows a straightforward logical progression as outlined in this deductive syllogism (expressed here in my own words, based on the aforementioned quote):
Premise 1: No intelligent being within the cosmos that arose after the beginning of the cosmos could be responsible for the fine-tuning of the laws of nature.
Premise 2: No intelligent being arising after the beginning of the universe could have set the initial conditions of the universe upon which its evolution and existence would depend.
Conclusion: Therefore, the intelligent being responsible for the fine-tuning of the laws or the initial conditions of the universe must have existed prior to and independently of the universe.

(I acknowledge that this syllogism already presupposes the existence of an intelligent creator. However, this argument appears later in Meyer’s book, after he has presented a compelling case for intelligent design)

I am limiting my rating from five stars to four because there were parts in the middle of the book that I personally struggled to understand. I gave this book grace because this seems more geared toward people within the scientific community who understand scientific formulas and such, things I frankly don’t. However, I would’ve appreciated if Meyer would’ve made his case easier to follow/understand for us simple folk out here 😅. The areas I struggled with were the more complex scientific formulas, specifically in Parts II-III and Chapter 15. I did absolutely love the beginning and end of this book because of how easy it was to follow Meyer’s line of thought.

I fully intend to circle back to this book sometime in the coming couple years because I believe this is a book that simply cannot be read one time. I wish I had more time to do a deep dive of each major concept and theory Meyer breaks down in this book. Alas, my time is limited and I have a plethora of other books that I need to knock off my reading list. I’m grateful to have had the opportunity to dive into these scientific concepts, and to finish this book with a 30,000 ft view of the arguments Meyer laid out.

Definitely a worthwhile read that I would recommend to anyone curious about the scientific discoveries that reveal the Mind behind the universe!

[India M. Clamp · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a comparative analysis of how cosmology and physics are interrelated. Meyer illustrates via research exactly how the Judeo-Christian worldview birthed (most sanguinarily) modern science in America. Though the track he is on tells us gently that nature---via investigation---is rational, logical and a subject meritorious of investigation . He alludes to the metaphors that govern---excerpted from the Bible (are the mechanisms by which nature work).

"The discovery of the fine tuning of the universe, like the discovery of the beginning of the universe itself, represents an effect that requires a cause with specific attributes, including both transcendence and intelligence."
—Stephen C. Meyer

Science may have an alternate take that may be studied, yet Meyer claims that not only did a personal being create the universe, but that this being also intervened twice (10 plagues and The Red Sea Parting) in natural history — specifically in the creation of life and during the Cambrian Explosion. Meyer challenges theistic evolution, which claims that God front-loaded the universe. If that is the case then is it not common to assume an intelligent creator and that creator is assumed to be orderly, conservative and rational. Meyer argues the "the God hypothesis" is the ideal explanation for the origin and fine-tuning of the universe, the origin of life, and the Cambrian Explosion.There are many lenses to use to decipher this conundrum and hope propels us. "De minimis non curat lex."

[Alan Fuller · Rating 5 out of 5]

Atheists often declare the advance of modern science as the chief reason to reject religion. The material universe has always existed and could arrange itself without a preexistent designer or creator. Astronomers such as Fred Hoyle believed the universe existed in a steady state. Then observation showed that the universe was expanding and must have had a beginning. The cosmic background radiation confirmed it. The uniformity of this radiation and many other observations require fine-tuning beyond chance. Intelligent activity can be recognized whenever a highly improbable object or event matches an independently specified or meaningful pattern.

“In 2008 in the film Expelled, Richard Dawkins publicly acknowledged that “we don’t know” how life originated in the first place and even speculated that the information in DNA might represent a “signature of some kind of designer.” p. 281

Intelligence is the only known cause capable of generating large amounts of specified information. The sudden appearance of many major groups of organisms in the fossil record does not fit easily into the picture of gradual evolutionary change. Random mutational changes are overwhelmingly more likely to degrade biological function.

“The many-worlds interpretation and the mathematical universe hypothesis flagrantly violate the Ockham’s razor principle. Indeed, both interpretations multiply theoretical entities infinitely.” p. 588

These are some of the reasons Dr. Meyer supports The God Hypothesis. I’m convinced.

[BJ Richardson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is by far my favorite read of the year. Granted, it is only January 6 and this is only my third read. Even still, as much as I loved the book, it probably isn't for everybody. From a technical standpoint, it reads at about the same level as Hawking's A Brief History of Time, Gleick's Chaos, and Brian Green's The Elegant Universe. If you enjoyed books like those, you will probably enjoy this.

In Return of the God Hypothesis, Stephen Meyer examines three major frontiers in science and how the God hypothesis best explains the information we have. In cosmology, this is the origin of the Big Bang. In physics, this is the fine-tuning of the universe. In biology, this is the origin of information in DNA.

This is more than a "God of the gaps" type theory. We cannot explain it, therefore: God. Instead, Meyers closely examines what we know and what questions it raises and then describes how Intelligent Design best answers those questions. He also examines other currently popular theories in the respective fields, and how intelligent design is a better, more logical paradigm through which to view the information than these other theories.

Even if someone doesn't agree with Meyer's answers, just the thoroughness with which he covers each topic and the weaknesses he exposes in the other theories alone makes this book worth reading. Even if you don't agree with his outcomes, he leaves no doubt that Intelligent Design deserves a fair hearing in the marketplace of ideas.

[Jan Notzon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Oh, that I had paid more attention in physics and calculus class! Oh, to be able to go back and take more science and math classes!

But despite those personal frustrations, I must say that for a person with limited scientific knowledge and skills, like myself, this is a truly extraordinary work. Meyer is always careful to include metaphors and analogies to explain complex scientific theories, laws and constants. For that, I am truly indebted.

I'm also greatly impressed by the thoroughness of his arguments, responding to all objections to his conclusions, usually in a way even a science dummy like myself can understand. There are points where that does break down, however. To wit: "We propose that amino-acid replacements in the catalytic cleft of a preexisting esterase with the beta-lactamase fold resulted in the evolution of the nylon oligomer hydrolase." (OoooooK.)

But truly, I found his arguments to be thoroughly supported with acute reasoning and evidence and his answers to all objections fully answered. I highly recommend it not just to science buffs but to anyone interested in philosophy and the things that give us meaning and hope.

[Nadia Lischke · Rating 1 out of 5]

The racism and white supremacy of Meyer is very evident. I stopped reading within the first 20 pages because of his argument that the reason science came from Europe was because of Christianity. He argues that without Christianity, science would not exist and vise versus. Maybe a more realistic and less bigoted statement would be that without religion or a belief in higher power, science would not exist and vise versa. I found his dismissal of all religions except for the ones in which most people who participate are white to be quite disrupted and upsetting.
I thought this kind of thought was out dated within the science community, but maybe not.

[Josiah Edwards · Rating 5 out of 5]

The research was vast, the reasoning was sharp, and the science was complex, yet, explained with patience and true passion. Could not be happier with this inspiring and detailed book by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer.

Meyer's explanation and analysis of the most popular theories of the origin of the universe by top cosmologists and physicists was incredibly impressive. Tackling them head on without shying away in the slightest and still clearly coming out on top. Brilliant.

[Mohammad Sadegh Rasooli · Rating 5 out of 5]

https://delsharm.blog.ir/1403/11/27/rgh


از عصر روشنگری و دانشمندان مؤمن تا مرگ خداوند
با آغاز عصر روشنگری، علوم تجربی مانند فیزیک، شیمی و زیست‌شناسی رشد شتابانی به خودش گرفت. شاید یکی از بنیادی‌ترین و تکان‌دهنده‌ترین نظریات فیزیکی، سه قانون فیزیکی آیزاک نیوتن بود که علاوه بر کشف مقولهٔ جاذبه، ادعا بر ازلی-ابدی بودن طبیعت کرد. در آن موقع کشفیات فیزیکی و شیمیایی بسیار ملهم از کلام مسیحی بود و در این اکتشافات پنداری دانشمند در پی وجدان مستقیم حکمت الهی در طبیعت است. در قرن هفدهم، رابرت بویل، فیلسوف فیزیک‌دان-شیمی‌دان اروپایی نظریهٔ وجود «طراح هوشمند» در جهان طبیعت را مطرح کرد که قاعدتاً با توجه به فضای الهیاتی حاکم بر جهان امری پذیرفتنی بود. در عین حال، جهان شاهد روند گرایش به طرح‌سازی ریاضیاتی از طبیعت بود تا جایی که وقتی لایب‌نیتز با خلل‌های ریاضی نظریهٔ نیوتن مواجه شد، کل مسأله را زیر سؤال برد. دلیل ایراد لایب‌نیتز آن بود که نیوتن برای خود امر جاذبه نتوانسته توجیهی فیزیکی بیابد و آن را به نحوی به حکمت الهی ارجاع داده است. از نظر نیوتن در آخرین ویرایش کتابش، تمام هستی را نگه‌دارنده‌ای است که خداوند است. اما تمام این نگاه الهیاتی به مرور زمان و البته به سرعت دچار چالش شد تا جایی که هم‌اکنون فضای غالب آموزشی-دانشگاهی جهان مبتنی بر مادی‌گری است.


شاید بشود سه دلیل برای گرایش خداناباورانه برشمرد (ص ۵۱): ۱) نحوی از خودبنیادی بشر و حس عاملیت خودبسنده، ۲)‌ ظهور تفکرات مبتنی بر شکاکیت، و ۳)‌غلبهٔ تفکر ماده‌گرا. دیوید هیوم، فیلسوف اسکاتلندی امر معجزه را باطل شمرد چرا که قوانین فیزیکی جهان را مختل می‌کند و اختلال در قوانین فیزیکی جهان امری ناممکن است. از نظر او خداوند امری محسوس نیست، پس نیست. در ادامه آگوست کومته، با ایجاد تفکر پوزیتیویستی سه مرحلهٔ الهیاتی، فلسفی و پوزیتیویستی را برای جهان برشمرد و افزود که اکنون با رشد علم دیگر نیاز به نگاه الهیاتی و فلسفی به جهان نیست. در این میان، امانوئل کانت، فیلسوف آلمانی با ردیه‌ای که بر استدلال استقرایی علم کلام اسلامی آورد، در وجود خداوند شک کرد و به این ترتیب مسألهٔ وجود خداوند از نظر فلسفی هم دچار خلل شد. استدلال استقرایی کلامیون آن بود که جهان طبیعت آغازی داشته است (حادث) و هر امر حادثی خالقی دارد و به همین خاطر جهان طبیعت هم خالق دارد. حال با اتکا بر نظریهٔ‌ نیوتن، کانت در این امر تشکیک جدی وارد کرد چرا که جهان طبیعی ازلی-ابدی تلقی شده است. البته این استدلال نیوتن، پیشینهٔ ارسطویی هم داشته است و به همین خاطر به نحوی سوگیری فلسفی یونانی نیز در این استدلال دخیل بوده است.
ضربهٔ بعدی به استدلال وجود خداوند را نظریهٔ فرگشت (تکامل انواع) ایجاد کرد. این نظریه را چارلز داروین مطرح کرد که با وجود سیر تصادفی فرگشت انواع در طی زمان طی اتفاق انتخاب طبیعی، جهش تصادفی ژنتیکی و ترکیب ژنتیکی، وجود خالق هوشمند دیگر مورد نیاز نخواهد بود. از نظر دنیای فیزیک، پی‌یر لاپلاس فیزیکدان فرانسوی نیز منکر وجود خداوند شد. با آمدن نظریات تاریخی مارکس بر اساس نیازهای مادی-اقتصادی و تلقی افیون توده‌ها بودن دین و در کنار آن، نظریات راون‌کاوانهٔ سیگموند فروید بر اساس آن که «خداوند انسان را خلق نکرد، بلکه انسان خداوند را خلق کرد» بشر وارد دورهٔ جدیدی از مادی‌گرایی علمی شد که انکار خداوند به عنوان پیش‌فرض علمی باید تلقی بشود. به نظر نویسنده، سه‌گانهٔ «ز کجا آمده‌ام» (داروین)، «آمدنم بهر چه بود» (فروید) و «به کجا می‌روم آخر» (مارکس) ترکیب مهمی بود که باعث سست شدن پایه‌های استدلال موحدین می‌شد. در ادامه با آمدن تفکر نو-داروینی که همه چیز را بر اساس تصادف تلقی می‌کرد، این تشکیک در وجود خداوند جدی‌تر شد. دفاع برخی از متفکران موحد جدا دانستن حیطهٔ علم و دین بود و گاهی حتی متباین بودن گزاره‌های دینی و علمی را ناشی از جدا بودن این دو ساحت تلقی می‌کردند.
در اواسط دههٔ هشتاد میلادی، ریچارد داوکینز (یکی از چهار پیامبر مکتب نو-خداناباوری) کتابی در مورد توهم خداوند نوشت که ظرف یک سال، سه میلیون نسخه از آن فروش رفت. استیفن هاوکینگ، فیزیکدان معلول انگلیسی که خود این معلولیت به نحوی کاریزمای ویژه‌ای به او می‌داد، کتابی در مورد طرح‌وارهٔ جهان بدون خداوند نوشت که این کتاب ظرف یک سال حداقل ده میلیون نسخه به فروش رسید و همهٔ این‌ها در واقع مؤیدی بودند برای «مرگ خداوند».

بازگشت فرضیهٔ خداوند
از نظر استیفن میر، استاد دانشگاه و درس‌آموختهٔ فیزیک و فلسفهٔ علم که دانش‌نامهٔ دکتری‌اش در دانشگاه کمبریج بر روی فرگشت بوده است، سه کشف فیزیکی-شیمیایی که بشر در قرن بیستم به دست آورد، اتفاقاً به وجود خداوند هوشمند بیشتر تأکید دارد. اصل حرف کتاب که به سال ۲۰۲۱ منتشر شده است، بر اساس این سه نظریه می‌گردد. و جالب‌تر آن که نویسنده در انتهای کتاب، حجم بسیار زیادی را در پاسخ به ردیه‌های حرف خود نوشته است. به قول خودش، اتفاقاً هر چقدر انتقادها قوی‌تر باشد، می‌شود دلایل قبلی را محکم‌تر کرد.
نخستین کشف، مه‌بانگ (بیگ‌بنگ) است: کهکشان‌ها و کلاً کیهان به تدریج در حال گسترده شدن است. مانند دانه‌های ریز کنجد روی کیک که موقع گرم شدن از هم فاصله می‌گیرند. بر اساس اصل برون‌یابی (اکستراپولیشن)، این به آن معنی است که جهان در آغاز نقطه‌ای بوده با چگالی بسیار زیاد و از آن نقطه جهان آغاز شده است و در آغاز کلمه بود و آن کلمه خدا بود. سپس نویسنده با جزئیاتی بسیار حیرت‌آور نظریه‌های پیرامونی مه‌بانگ مانند تکینگی از هاوکینگ را مطرح می‌کند که همهٔ آن‌ها صحه بر این امر می‌گذارد که جهان آغازی داشته است. سپس به نظریات دیگر مانند نظریهٔ جهان‌های موازی و جهان‌های بی‌نهایت می‌پردازد و به صورت منطقی نشان می‌دهد که به جای استدلال استقرایی که باید حتماً به یک جواب رسید، با استدلال ابداعی (ابداکتیو) و بر اساس اصل سادگی تیغ اوکهام، اتفاق وجود آفریدگار بسیار منطقی‌تر از بقیهٔ استدلال‌ها، وجود طبیعت را توجیه و تفسیر می‌کند.
دومین کشف، تنظیم دقیق (فاین‌تیونینگ) است. به نظر می‌رسد بسیاری از قوانین فیزیکی کشف‌شده از دانشمندان به گونه‌ای است که اندک تغییری در مقادیر متغیرها و ثوابت، باعث نابودی جهان می‌شود. حال سؤال آن است که چگونه این قوانین با این دقت تنظیم و تغییر می‌کنند؟ برخی مانند هاوکینگ خودبسندگی ریاضیات موجود را دلیل می‌آورند که به قول منطقیون دور دارد و قابل استدلال نیست. برخی دیگر مانند داوکینز کماکان جهان را کور و بی‌منطق و بر اساس تصادف می‌بینند ولی هرچه می‌گذرد، دریافت‌های دانشمندان چیز دیگری را به ما نشان می‌دهد. این سطح از دقت به گونه‌ای است که اندکی تغییر همه چیز را به هم می‌ریزد، نشان از وجود خالقی هوشمند دارد. اگر نظریهٔ اثبات‌نشدهٔ تصادفی‌ بودن را بپذیریم، به همان قیاس هر آن ممکن است یکی از این ثوابت و متغیرها تغییر کند و جهان از هم بپاشد که خودش مبین برهان هدایت می‌شود و نیاز به خالقی دارد که با الهیات توحیدی هم‌خوان‌تر است تا حتی با نظام فکری داداری (دئیسم).
سومین کشف، اطلاعات موجود و دقیق در دی‌ان‌ای است. دی‌ان‌ای اطلاعات بیشتری از کشفیات داروین به ما می‌دهد. رمزینه‌های موجود در دی‌ان‌ای به گونه‌ای است که احتمال زیست‌پذیری را در مقابل همهٔ احتمالات ممکن به صفر میل می‌دهد. وقتی به فضای محاسباتی همهٔ حالات ممکن ترکیبات دی‌ان‌ای نگاه می‌کنیم، می‌فهمیم جهان ما در سطحی از نظم (آنتروپی پایین در زبان نظریهٔ اطلاعات شانون) وجود دارد که این نظم بسیار کم‌احتمال است (یک تقسیم بر ده به توان ۱۲۳). به قول فرانسیس کریک (ص ۱۸۱)‌ هر انسان راستگویی اعتراف به معجزه بودن این اتفاق خواهد کرد. حال پاسخ ریچارد داوکینز آن است که احتمال زیادی وجود دارد که تمدنی بیگانه در جای دیگری از نظام کیهانی تکامل یافته و سپس اولین زندگی رو زمین را طرح و بذرپاشی کرده است: گزاره‌ای که بیشتر به قصه‌های تخیلی می‌ماند تا هر چیز دیگر.

در بخش‌های دیگر کتاب نویسنده به این می‌پردازد که با فرض وجود خداوند، آیا نظام خداوند خالق حافظ جهان درست است (تئیسم) یا خداوند دادار (دئیسم) که جهان را در نقطه‌ای آفرید و رها کرد، یا همه‌خدایی (پانتئیسم). از دیدگاه هوشمندی نظم موجود در خلقت، همه‌خدایی چنین گزاره‌ای را برآورده نمی‌کند. نظام داداری پاسخی برای حمل اطلاعات ژنتیکی فرگشتی در طول زمان ندارد و اگر بپذیریم آفریدگاری با این جزئیات تمام اطلاعاتی که تا پایان جهان برای همهٔ اجزای جهان مورد نیاز است را در سلول بنیادی جهان تعبیه کرده است، اولاً دچار مشکلی می‌شویم که از نظر نظریه‌ای چطوری می‌شود رفتارهای شبه‌احتمالاتی را برای رخدادهای فیزیکی-زیستی جهان با آن نگاه توجیه کرد. ثانیاً چرا خدایی با این سطح از هوشمندی، جهانی به این پیچیدگی را به حال خود وانهد؟ به بیان دیگر (ص ۲۹۷)، این جهان را آغازی بوده است و پس از آن آغاز تغییرات ناپیوسته‌ای اتفاق افتاده است و اطلاعات زیستی بسیاری از چیزها از آن موقع دچار تغییرات اساسی شده‌اند. بر این اساس، خداباوری خیلی دقیق‌تر و بهتر از نظام دادارباوری می‌تواند نظام کیهانی و جهان طبیعی را توصیف کند.
در عین حال از نظر منطقی، آن طوری که مورلند و ویلیام کریگ گفته‌اند (ص ۲۵۳)، از آنجایی که ذهن مجهز به عاملیت آزاد می‌تواند زنجیره‌ای از علل و معلول را بدون آن که مجبور باشد بسازد، کنش‌های آن عامل آزاد نیاز به تسلسل علت و معلول را از بین می‌برد و به همین خاطر می‌تواند خود عاملی باشد که نیاز به هیچ علتی ندارد. به بیان دیگر،‌ آن عامل می‌تواند خودبسنده و واجب‌الوجود باشد. البته بر این نظریه شبهه‌ای مبنی بر فیزیک کوانتومی وارد کرده‌اند که ممکن است ذره‌ای اولیه به صورت بی‌نهایت وجود داشته و در لحظهٔ مه‌بانگ آن ذره شروع به ایجاد نظام کیهانی کرده باشد. پاسخ آن که یک حالت باثبات واقعی یا ادواری کوانتومی که همیشه باقی بماند، هیچ گاه هم تغییر نمی‌کند چرا که چیزی که بی‌ثبات و قابل تغییر است، امکان بی‌تغییری ازلی ندارد. (ص ۲۵۶)
نویسنده در جای‌جای کتاب تأکید می‌کند که قوانین فیزیکی به هیچ عنوان ممکنیت و تنظیم دقیق را توضیح یا تضمین و تعیین نمی‌کند. بلکه، فیزیکدان‌ها باید آن مقادیر به دست بیاورند که با آن بتوانند نظام کیهانی را بسنجند. لذا خود آن قوانین فیزیکی-ریاضیاتی خودشان به خودی خود هیچ قدرت خلقی ندارند و این ردیه‌ای محکم است بر استدلال‌های استیفن هاوکینگ. در ادامه به صورت مفصل در مورد مکانیک کوانتوم، نظریاتی مانند نظریهٔ رشته و امثال آن بحث می‌شود و نشان داده می‌شود که با پیچیده‌تر شدن نظام ریاضیاتی موجود در آن نظریات، اتفاقاً نیاز به خالق هوشمند بیشتر از قبل به چشم می‌آید.
این کتاب ۵۶۸ صفحه‌ای که ۴۵۰ صفحه متن اصلی دارد، خیلی مستقیم بر روی بحث علمی متمرکز است و به بسیاری از شبهات و مسائل موجود مانند فیزیک کوانتوم، نظریهٔ رشته، نظریهٔ جهان ریاضی، نظریهٔ جهان‌های دیگر و بسیاری از نظریات می‌پردازد و نشان می‌دهد که بسیاری از دانشمندان جهان مدرن، مانند آن چه نایجل زیست‌شناس این شجاعت را داشته که به صراحت بنویسد و بگوید، ترجیح می‌دهند این جهان خدایی نداشته باشد و تمام سعی‌شان را می‌کنند که با نظریهٔ طبیعت‌گرایی و مادی‌گرایی حتی اگر شده به فرضیات موهوم و شبیه قصه دستاویز شوند، و جهان را جوری طرح کنند که نیاز به خدایی نباشد. ولی متأسفانه خداباوری چیزی شبیه گربهٔ مرتضی‌علی است که از هر جایی بیفتد، چهار دست و پا بر زمین می‌آید. در جهان امروز که خدا از معادلات روزمرهٔ علم و سیاست حذف شده است، اولین اثرش بی‌معنایی جهان و بی‌اخلاقی می‌شود. وقتی این جهان صرفاً بر اساس تصاف باشد تمام دستاوردهای زندگی بی‌معنا و تمام رنج‌ها بیهوده می‌شود. به قول ولتر: اگر خدایی هم نبود، انسان نیاز به اختراع آن داشت. از نظر احساسی شاید به این معنا باشد که انسان نیازمند به خالق است و این خود توهم است اما شاید از نظر نظری این معنا را خواند که وجود خالق به معنی واقعی بسیاری از مشکلات و مسائل فلسفی را حل می‌کند (ص ۴۴۹). اگر خدایی نباشد، دیگر هیچ اصلی باقی نمی‌ماند. جهان می‌شود جایی برای بقا به هر قیمتی و معنا به طور کامل از زندگی رخت می‌بندد (در کتاب «یافتن معنا در جهان ناقص»، ایدو لاندو نویسندهٔ اسرائیلی دقیقاً در قبال مرگ اعتراف می‌کند که بدون دین در مقابله با مرگ جهان خالی از معناست). این جهان بدون خالق، جهان «تهوع» سارتر می‌شود.





پی‌نوشت ۱:
چند مدتی است متوجه شده‌ام تفکرات خداناباوری شیوع بیشتری در ایرانیان نسبت به گذشته داشته است. محض کنجکاوی ساعت‌ها به صحبت‌های خداناباوران که دنبال‌کنندگان میلیونی در شبکه‌های مجازی دارند گوش دادم. آن‌ها استدلالاتی با یقین علمی می‌آوردند در مورد مسائلی مانند امکان ایجاد ذره از عدم در فیزیک کوانتومی، خودبسندگی جهان ابدی-ازلی در نظریهٔ طبیعت‌گرا و خطرناک بودن دینداری که همیشه با خرافه و جهل ممزوج می‌شود. آن قدری محکم در مورد فرگشت می‌گفتند که خودم به شک افتادم نکند این‌ها راست می‌گویند و من دچار توهم شدم. ما در هوش مصنوعی، حداقل قبل از شیوع شبکه‌های عمیق، درس مهندسی ژنتیک می‌خواندیم و اولین اصلی که یاد می‌گرفتیم آن بود که در کنار جهش، ترکیب و تغییر تصادفی، تابع برازشی وجود دارد که برازندگی هر ترکیب جدید ژنتیکی را اندازه می‌گیرد و نمونه‌برداری تصادفی بر اساس احتمال آن برازش اتفاق می‌افتد. به معنای دیگر، ذهن طراح در این فرآیند ژنتیکی به شکلی کاملاً آگاهانه و هوشمند دخیل است. دیگر آن که در هوش مصنوعی جدید که بر بنیان تناسب دادن تابع هدف با حداکثر احتمال ممکن به واقعیت بیرونی است، ما مشخصاً از برنامهٔ تنظیم دقیق ریاضیاتی بهره می‌بریم که نیاز به خالق را درخواست می‌کند.
وجه دیگری از شک که این‌ها به جان مردم می‌اندازند، خودبسندگی فیزیک و ریاضی است. اول آن که به قول علی صفایی حائری، حتی اگر علت‌العلل همهٔ اتفاقات را کشف کنیم، آن «علت ترکیبی» که باعث این علت‌العلل (مانند فرمول ریاضی و فیزیکی) می‌شود قابل توجیه فیزیکی نیست. به نظرم می‌رسد نحوی از غرور انباشته از تظاهر در ادعاهای آن دسته از خداناباوران طبیعت‌گرا وجود دارد که با آوردن اصطلاحات غریبهٔ علمی می‌خواهند اصل قصه را خدشه‌دار کنند. من به هیچ عنوان مخالف این بحث‌ها نیستم اما صحبتم در آن است که این نحو از تقلیل‌گرایی در استدلال‌های خداناباوران بیشتر به نظر می‌آید نوعی از پروپاگاندای سرشار از مغلطه است تا اطلاعات دقیق. بدتر آن که در بسیاری از کتاب‌های شبه‌علمی پرفروش که می‌خوانم هر گودرز و شقایقی را به فرگشت نسبت می‌دهند و آخرش می‌شود که مثلاً دلیل فلان مشکل روحی-روانی آن است که ما بعد ازمیمون بودن که در غار بودیم شکار می‌کردیم و به خاطر غریزهٔ شکار فلان شد و حالا شد این‌طوری. قصه‌هایی که به معنای واقعی کلمه، گزاره‌های انکارناپذیر اثبات‌ناپذیر هستند: داستان‌سازی تخیلی.
حالا رواج این حرف‌ها در جوامع سنتی مانند ایران که تا حالا اخلاق را دائرمدار امر دینی وجدان می‌کرده است، و حتی نتوانسته به اخلاق عرفی (سکولار) پیوند بخورد و با عقلانیت محاسبه‌گر مدرن غربی پیوند کامل داشته باشد (و به همین دلیل، بسیاری از ایرانیان در اوایل مهاجرت به غرب، برخی از رفتارهای مهربانانهٔ غربی‌ها را تعبیر به فضیلت اخلاقی می‌کنند)، همان ترسی را به ذهن متبادر می‌کند که داستایوسکی از زبان یکی از برادران کارامازوف آورده است: در جهان بدون خداوند، هر امری مباح است. بدتر از آن که همین تفکر بنیاد خانواده را به هم خواهد ریخت و امید و معنا را از زندگی به کل بیرون خواهد کرد. دوباره تأکید می‌کنم که اصلاً حرفم آن نیست که بحث‌های دقیق علمی و فلسفی نشود. اتفاقاً برعکس ناراحتم که چرا هرازگاهی خبر می‌آید که عالمی دینی به خاطر صحبت کردن اندکی خارج از قاعده به خانه‌نشینی اجباری و تکفیر دچار می‌شود اما کشاندن این بحث‌های بسیار پیچیدهٔ علمی در میان عموم سود بسیار اندکی دارد. راستی، واقعاً چند نفر از آن کسانی که یکی از آن ده میلیون نسخهٔ کتاب هاوکینگ را خواندند، به مغلطه‌های فلسفی در لفافهٔ بحث‌های پیچیده ریاضی پی بردند؟ اخیراً در مصاحبهٔ مصطفی مستور در برنامهٔ سروش صحت متوجه شدم، مستور از نوشتن «روی ماه خداوند را ببوس» پشیمان است چرا که فرآیند تردیدهای هستی‌شناسانه‌اش می‌توانسته به طور بالقوه در دل بسیاری از افراد که داشتند زندگی عادی‌شان را می‌کردند شک بیندازد و مستور ناراحت بود که چرا وقتی چنین مسأله‌ای تبدیل به مسألهٔ فردی شخص نشده است، باید در این سطح این شک را به ذهن متبادر کرد. برایم جالب شد پس از سال‌ها دوباره سراغ این داستان بلند بروم و بخوانم: یادم می‌آید آن موقع که خواندم (شاید به خاطر آن که آن موقع مسألهٔ شخصی من نبود)‌ چنین شکی به ذهنم خطور نکرد.





پی‌نوشت ۲:
سال گذشته، کتاب کوتاهی از مهدی گلشنی، استاد فیزیک دانشگاه شریف خواندم با عنوان «خداباوری و دانشمندان معاصر» که در نوع خودش جالب بود اما به جزئیات اصلاً پرداخته نشده بود.





پی‌نوشت ۳:
پیش‌تر از این کتابی با عنوان «اسلام به خداناباوری پاسخ می‌دهد» را خوانده بودم که به نظرم بسیار جالب بود. نسخهٔ صوتی این کتاب به صورت رایگان در یوتیوب موجود است.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIesG...


پی‌نوشت ۴:
استیفن میر مصاحبه و مناظرات بسیاری انجام داده است که بسیاری‌شان در اینترنت موجودند. از جمله صحبت او با پال ویلیامز (مسلمان انگلیسی) در صفحهٔ یوتیوب ویلیامز که آنجا ویلیامز از نادیده گرفتن اکتشافات علمی مسلمانان در کتاب انتقاد می‌کند.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-BOX...



برگرفته شده از delsharm.blog.ir

[Roger Burk · Rating 4 out of 5]

The God hypothesis has "returned" because the foundational scientists of the 17th century (Galileo and Newton and so forth) were all committed theists and regarded the mathematical laws of nature that they discovered as evidence of a rational order from the mind of God. It was only in the 19th century that the great apostasy started among scientists (driven largely by the divergence between the findings of geology and paleontology and the story in Genesis, though Meyer doesn't mention it). New discoveries in the 20th century have now induced some scientists (cited by Meyer, himself a philosopher of science) to give some plausibility to the idea that there is intelligent design behind the Universe.

The major discoveries discussed are: (1) The Universe came into being at a certain point in time. (2) The laws of physics have to be exactly as they are or life would be impossible. (3) The initial conditions of the Universe had to be just what they were or life wouldn't develop. (4) Life is based on complex information coded in DNA, and there's no plausible mechanism for such DNA to arise spontaneously out of a soup of chemicals in a primeval sea.

(1) Meyer doesn't get into this logically primary case until the later chapters of the book, perhaps because it's not an intelligent-design argument. The problem is, if there was a time when the Universe was not, what caused it to come to be? Meyer discusses various theories of quantum cosmology that give an account of how something came to be out of nothing, and he finds flaws in them. Some theorists say that since quantum mechanics allows virtual particles to appear from nothing, the Universe can also appear from nothing. That's quite a leap--and it only happens when the boundary conditions to quantum cosmology's differential equations are particularly set, i.e. finely tuned. Some people say that the laws of quantum physics cause the Universe to appear from nothing. That's a category error. Physical laws don't cause anything, they just describe behavior. So the claim is that the behavior of the Universe is such that it appears from nothing. Well maybe--but we've never seen this happen. For me, I'll believe it when I see it.

(2) Some quantum cosmologies address the fine-tuning problem by postulating a universe-generating process that produces universes in extravagant profusion (conservation of mass be damned) with varying laws of physics and initial conditions, so it's not surprising that one of them could harbor life. But why does the distribution of possible universes include one with the right fine tuning? One particularly extravagant hypothesis is that all mathematically possible universes exist, and ours is one of the infinitesimally small proportion that harbors life. But since universes with randomly changing laws are mathematically possible, ours might be one. We might fly into space tomorrow because gravity quit. Worse, a tiny but nonzero proportion of universes would contain "Boltzman brains" assembled purely by chance, complete with false memories. Since these could exist in the superabundance of short-lived universes that apparently would outnumber long-lived universes like ours, we are likely to be Boltzman brains.

(3) Meyer points out that not only must the laws of physics be just right to enable life, the initial conditions of the Universe--amount and state of mass and energy--must also be just so.

(4) Meyer spends a lot of time on the information-based DNA code, pointing out that such things don't appear in nature, but only in systems designed by intelligent beings (i.e. people). Not only must a DNA molecule come together in a way that codes for a protein, but that protein must fold together in a way that allows it to carry out a function that replicates the original DNA. (It seems that only a tiny fraction of possible proteins fold up into something useful.) Not only must the origin of life be explained, but also the Cambrian explosion and certain other periods when the variety and complexity of living creatures increased extremely rapidly. But this argument seems weaker to me than (1)-(3). Just because we can't think of a mechanism that would create replicating DNA from nonliving predecessors doesn't mean no such mechanism exists. And it seems like special pleading to suggest that the Intelligent Designer started life out in the Archaeozoic and then let it run for while, popping back in the Cambrian to stir the pot. I think it's more rational to assume that some enabling mutation occurred then that enabled the explosion of diversity.

It used to be said that we could know living creatures were intelligently designed, just as we would know that a functioning watch we found on a beach was designed. Then Darwin came along and showed us how blind natural selection could assemble a watch. But to me it's still an inexplicable wonder that the beach is littered with watch parts. Why should such intricate things as DNA molecules be chemically and physically possible? I suppose that comes down to a version of the fine-tuning argument (2).

Meyer also addresses the "God of the gaps" critique. This argument says that intelligent design is only invoked to explain thing that science has not yet figured out, as it was once invoked to explain the origin of mankind. Meyer replies that we do see complexity like we observe in living things, but only in devices created by intelligent beings, i.e. ourselves. Therefore intelligent design is a logical hypothesis for the source of the complexity of life. He also says that no materialist theory can possibly explain the origin of the Universe. Furthermore, the finite age of the Universe was predicted by theists before scientists discovered it, lending strength to argument (1). Well, maybe. But maybe we'll someday discover a reason why a Universe must come into existence, and why its laws and initial conditions can logically only be exactly what they are. Or maybe such reasons exist but are beyond the power of the human mind to understand. The trouble is that an Intelligent Designer can explain not only the Universe we see, but any Universe at all. The theory has no explanatory power.

Meyer wants to give scientific stature to the hypothesis of intelligent design. He does not identify his Designer with the God of any revealed religion. However, the hypothesis does not lead to any testable predictions about the world we live in. To me, that puts it outside the realm and science and into that of philosophy. I say the scientific attitude towards (1)-(4) should be to shrug and say that we just don't understand the explanations for these puzzles. Maybe someday we will, and maybe not, but let's keep trying. The astonishing thing is that we can understand anything at all about quasars and quarks and so forth. After all, our brains are those of savannah apes and evolved only to do things that helped those apes survive and reproduce in their environment, and none of that had anything to do with quasars and quarks.

Meyer claims that it is theism that justifies belief in the reliability of our minds. If minds are just the actions of blind random assemblages of chemicals, why should we have any confidence at all in their ideas? (It seems to me that our ability to make testable predictions about our environment gives us a useful level of confidence.) Also, "Our actions betray a belief in objective moral values and moral principles." That's certainly true, I think. We are built to believe in the divine, and if It does not exist then we are truly pitiable.

In summary, Meyer gives a very lucid and accessible explanation of various scientific discoveries about the Universe that seem more compatible with the idea that it was designed to be a harbor for life than with idea that it was the product of blind chance, particularly the fine-tuning problem. He attempts to explain to the intelligent layman some very abstract scientific theories, and it's hard to see how he could do much better. He does seem to go over the same arguments many times, sometimes with word-for-word repetition of the same points. It is possible to critique his reasoning as motivated by a desire to prove the existence of God. But atheist physicists are plainly just as motivated by the desire to dismiss the God hypothesis, so it's a wash. His arguments stand or fall by their merits, not by their motivation.

[Andy Febrico Bintoro · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is quite rare nowadays. It's theme is the faith-science integration and comes from NYT bestseller author. This book talked about evidence from cosmology suggesting that the material universe had a beginning; evidence from physics showing that from the beginning the universe has been “finely tuned” to allow for the possibility of life; and evidence from biology establishing that since the beginning large amounts of new functional genetic information have arisen in our biosphere to make new forms of life possible—implying, as I had argued before, the activity of a designing intelligence.

[Jarrett Vandiver · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredible read on some of the strongest arguments for intelligent design. The evidence of DNA and organic cells coming from complex information gives Christians every reason to use our theology of intelligent design as a basis for further scientific innovation, just as Isaac Newton did.

Also, who knew that Edgar Allen Poe was the first to suggest the “finiteness” of the universe by writing a poem on starlight not having enough time to travel to our planet. As we know today, the universe had a beginning with a singularity. Stephen Meyer’s case for why that “singularity” is most likely an intelligent mind was profound.

I’ll be coming back to this book for many science questions that inevitably go over my right-brained head.

[Tyler Fabian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really have to be paying attention while reading this to understand it and for most of it, I was not

[jerald james mitchell · Rating 5 out of 5]

I feel Academia has been hiding much from its students

Who would have known that there is in fact an overwhelming amount of evidence that materialistic naturalism as a metaphysical belief has pretty much ran into a concrete wall. Even though I was more than a little educated on much of the topics in this book through my higher education (Nuclear Engineering Technology), I feel as if the discussion always ended with the flavors of “Neo-Darwinian theory, chemistry,quantum cosmology, chemistry have answered all that matters, and the rest is just around the corner.” None of the lectures or textbooks I came across ever showed the challenges brought forth by Intelligent Design proponents, Science Philosophers, other scientist leveled against the sciences (SINCE THE 60’s) was ever discussed, even though the merits of such are much stronger than I even believed could be possible.

Academia has effectively smashed Theistic beliefs into smithereens and has no place in the halls of the Learned....But wait!

This treatise from Dr. Meyer shows that the more we learn scientifically, the more logical Theism becomes, and that the scientific evidence actually supports the belief......Well, let’s just be direct: The scientific evidence keeps showing that materialistic naturalism and cosmology can’t explain the origin of life/universe, and is highly improbable that it ever will, rendering Theism as necessary for the sciences to actually be logically coherent.

This isn’t a God Of The Gaps argumentation that just plugs in God as the answer to the unknowns, but a rigorous scientific methodology of using the evidence at hand and inference to the best explanation that scientists have relied on for almost all scientific/logical reasoning.

If you have had your faith in God by either what your professors and their required texts told you, or if you believe that the Science vs. Religion battle is finished, or have been told that the science is settled -read this book.

If you are a scientifically interested individual, just curious, or about to head off to college -read this book.

[Gilad Sommer · Rating 3 out of 5]

First of all, I really admire Meyer's intellectual depth and width. His ability to understand and explain different areas of scientific knowledge is impressive. I read his book "Signature in the Cell", and I found his arguments for the need of intelligent intervention in the formation of the DNA code and his criticism of the unsatisfying explanations of Neo-Darwinism convincing.
I had a few problems with this book, however.
The first part of the book is a synthesis of the ideas he developed in his last two books, as well as new ideas about the "fine tuning" of the universe. As usual, he covers them with aplomb, although I felt he was less pedagogic than usual. His criticism of the inadequate materialistic explanations of the origins of life and the universe are convincing.
When it comes to theological arguments, however, that's when he becomes a Christian apologist instead of a scientist or philosopher. He treats other theologies in quite a superficial way.
For example, his description of Hinduism as a form of pantheism, and its one-page cancellation, is quite condescending and shows a shallow view of the topic.
In my opinion, Meyer should have stopped in the possibility of the existence of a Judeo-Christian-like creator God, but not try and explain it as the best possibility among different theological causes.

To sum, this book brings up interesting reasonings for the possibility of a Judeo-Christian creator god, but lacks a theological depth and width equal to its scientific-intellectual one.
If you're a Christian looking to justify your already held beliefs then this book is for you.
If you're looking for a serious scientific discussion of the mysteries of the universe, I recommend his other two books.

[Avery Fields · Rating 5 out of 5]

Meyer’s arguments arms believers with the knowledge that the triumphalist atheist intellectuals of our day have enormously overstated the weight of their explanatory theories that apparently undermine any necessity for belief in God. To summarize the arguments would require much more time than I can afford, but most simply stated, God Himself is the best explanation for 1) the existence of literally anything, 2) the uncannily hospitable conditions of the universe, 3) the vast stores of information necessary for even the most fundamental forms of life.
He makes his case in accessible language, in a spirit of generosity toward his opponents, without appealing to any authority but reason and principles of interpreting scientific data. And his case is a formidable one. Notice the character of critiques of his work, that few dare to actually address the arguments presented with any respect or seriousness. Even the ones who do are not very compelling.
Highly recommend to those looking for a concise rebuttal to the diatribe of modern atheists.

[nvsblmnstr · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am neither a theologian nor a scientist and the relationship between the two subjects fascinates me. It is not hyperbole to say I think about it every day of my life. One could say that there has been a war between scientists: those that believe science “proves” the existence of God and those that believe science discredits God’s existence and this book explores both sides of this argument. It is really heavy stuff. So heavy that I found my eyes glazing over while reading this immensely dense text. This did not detract much from my reading experience but enough so that I didn’t love it as much as I hoped. Now please don’t let this dissuade you hardcore scientists or theologians. There is a lot of great material here (though it leans more toward religion) and the research and work that went into this is something to be admired. It just isn’t for someone with a passing interest like myself.

[Josh Anders · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is book is fantastic. Anyone looking for a strong look at theistic arguments for God’s existence based off intelligent design or ontological necessity should check this one out. It is semi-technical at times which causes me to get a little lost, however, Meyer is a great author and keeps you engaged throughout. It’s a hard read but I’m glad i tracked through it all. Most interesting to me was his dissection of Hawking’s arguments. I never realized how many materialists have simply set boundary conditions in their equations to vastly limit their possible outcomes. Meyer has done the theistic world a service with this book.

[Cathryn · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a challenge for me as I’m by far not a scientist but I still found it very fascinating. So much work is being done and I thought it was interesting how many scientists convert to Christianity after establishing their evidence. I thought it was interesting that many can believe aliens came to earth and planted a seed to create life when an alien is also, like God, something we haven’t seen. I only pray this sticks in the Rolodex of my brain in case I need it to defend my faith. Plus, maybe I’ll understand a bit more of the Big Bang Theory reruns. 😂 I thought the editor should’ve taken out some of those Nevertheless words.