Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe ― As Featured in the Film, The Story of Everything

(This is an abbreviated version of my review on Goodreads.) This book is about evidence from science that can be used to confirm faith in God. Specifically, it provides evidence, reason, and argument to persuade the reader that the theistic worldview is legitimate and does not violate scientific evidence. It is worth noting that Stephen Meyer’s book begins with an incident during a debate with Lawrence Krauss that led him to write Return of the God Hypothesis. This was a significant turning point for Meyer because up until this book, he has consistently referred to the scientific evidence as support for Intelligent Design and has sidestepped the question about the designer’s identity. Meyer offers three main lines of scientific evidence for theism. None of this evidence is new to those who have followed the conversation between science and faith. However, Meyer enlivens his presentation of the evidence with personal narratives of his experiences with scientists. He also includes biographical stories about the scientists who participated in these discoveries and their attitudes towards faith. The three main lines of reasoning are (1) evidence for the creation of the universe, (2) evidence for the fine-tuning of the universe for life, and (3) evidence for the creation of genetic code in the cells of all life. The evidence for the creation of the universe consists of what has been called the Big Bang, some 13.7 billion years ago. This is a well-accepted theory. The Cosmos had a beginning; therefore, it had a creator. Since the Big Bang was the beginning of space and time, the creator had to transcend space and time. The reasoning Meyer uses to make these conclusions is named abduction; that is, inference to the best hypothesis. His possible hypotheses are Materialism, Pantheism, Deism, and Theism. The evidence for fine-tuning is the extraordinary selection of physical constants and laws necessary to create a universe conducive to life. There are many such constants. One is the specific ratio for the strength of the gravitational force compared to the strong nuclear force. One way to summarize the evidence for fine-tuning is the number representing the likelihood that our universe was created by chance. This number was first proposed by the 2020 Nobel Laureate, Roger Penrose. Penrose estimates that there was one chance in 10^(10^123) that our universe was created with incredibly low entropy. (“^” means exponentiation.) Low entropy means a high degree of specified order. And that means that our universe was created to create and sustain life. Penrose’s number is so large that there has not been enough time since the Big Bang to write it down as a string of digits. The colossal size of the number implies a very, very low probability that our universe was created by chance. Finally, the genetic code found in all life contains specific information for the composition of proteins necessary for life. Meyer’s first book, Signature in the Cell, describes the amazing appearance of life on earth more than 3.5 billion years ago and likens the DNA code to a signature from its creator. In his latest book, the DNA code is like a computer program that specifies the molecular machinery necessary for life. Chemistry can’t explain the sequence of the DNA units because any chemical bonds between the DNA coding units would preclude some of the required combinations from forming. There are no materialistic explanations for the appearance of specified information inside the living cell. What is crucial to understand is that the information cannot be explained even if the material composition could. The presentation of solid scientific evidence takes up the first half of the book. If you are familiar with the discussion of the relevant science, this part of the book will go quickly. I required more study in the second half of the book. Here, Meyer delves into some of the challenges to Intelligent Design and some of the support he has received from unexpected sources. The first challenge comes from alternative materialist theories for creating life, such as the “RNA World” hypothesis. In that scenario, RNA was the first molecule and not DNA. But RNA encounters criticism from biologists as well. And Meyer claims that even if the molecular claims were proven, that still would not explain the information contained in the molecule. But Meyer also confronts challenges from evolutionary theists, for example, BioLogos. Evolutionary theists believe that God is using the evolutionary mechanism without specific intervention in the creation of life. Therefore, one could believe the laws of nature were “front-loaded” for the existence of life. That hypothesis would support deism. Meyer gets unexpected support from the atheistic philosopher Thomas Nagel. Nagel wrote Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. He wrote that book to explain why he doesn’t think random mutation can explain how nature works. He calls for a teleological principle to give a direction to the laws of nature. In his view, an undirected process cannot result in the world we live in. The most significant challenge to the creation of the universe comes from what Meyer calls “Exotic Naturalism.” These are speculative hypotheses that attempt to circumvent the fine-tuning evidence and the evidence for a finite age of the universe. Included here are multiple universe proposals, chaotic-inflation theories, quantum cosmology, and the string theory landscape. If you haven’t run into these arguments before, you may need more study to understand the debate. Meyer presents these exotic theories somewhat independently. As espoused by proponents, however, they are often woven together into a coherent hypothesis. Lawrence Krauss, for example, presents a view including the multiple universes, chaotic inflation, and the string theory landscape. Meyer likens the proposals for a multiverse creation scenario to believing in ten unproven scientific postulates. In Meyer’s conclusion, he considers philosophical challenges to his arguments for theism. The foremost challenge has been the “God-of-the-gaps” accusation. This accusation is an accusation that Meyer is committing the fallacy of an argument from ignorance. An argument from ignorance simply supplies a possible cause for unexplained phenomena without providing evidence that the proposed cause has the power to do what is claimed. Meyer’s consistent claim is that the specified complexity of information present in DNA is sufficient to show the presence of a creating mind. If you come at this argument from a materialist perspective, you will have difficulty with the proposition for a disembodied mind. Meyer is a mind-brain dualist. He believes that consciousness does not arise only in material brains. This is a legitimate view on philosophical grounds. Still, many people will have trouble buying into this line of thinking. In an essay titled “Of Minds and Causes,” published in Debating Darwin’s Doubt, Meyer insists that he doesn’t need to show how a disembodied mind can cause material actions. While that may be true, I think his thesis would be even more compelling with such an explanation. The final chapter of Meyer’s book is titled “The Big Questions and Why They Matter.” Here, Meyer describes the reason theism is vital for human society. There are inspirational aspects to theism that are not present in materialist explanations. Attempts have been made to expound on the wonder and awe-inspiring nature of our material universe. Still, these fall short, in my view, in a universe without God, in a universe based only on random chance. Some have attributed many of our social problems on the despair resulting from an impersonal, materialist ideology. Meyer gives a very persuasive reason for believing in theism even without the scientific evidence for support. If the forces controlling the universe are random, we have no assurance that our cognitive faculties are sound. We may have evolved to survive and reproduce, but that alone does not guarantee that we can perceive the truth about the universe. Meyer states several times in his book that modern materialist ideologies actually undermine the legitimacy of science. Lawrence Krauss admits as much in A Universe from Nothing. “If instead the laws of physics as we know them are merely accidents correlated to our existence, then that fundamental goal [of an intelligible universe] was misplaced.” Krauss ends his book with a bleak picture of our future in a dying universe. He offers us a thin strand of hope. “The universe is far stranger and far richer—more wondrously strange—than our meager human imaginations can anticipate.” Meyer responds to Krauss in his conclusion: "Nevertheless, this book has better news: neither of the widely offered responses to the death of God—angst or Sisyphean resistance—is in fact necessary. Not only does theism solve a lot of philosophical problems, but empirical evidence from the natural world points powerfully to the reality of a great mind behind the universe. Our beautiful, expanding, and finely tuned universe and the exquisite, integrated, and informational complexity of living organisms bear witness to the reality of a transcendent intelligence—a personal God."

In this extensively researched, meticulously documented 450-page tome, Dr. Meyer zeroes in on three of the most challenging questions in the science of origins: 1) If the “Big Bang” caused the universe, what caused the “Big Bang”? 2) What accounts for the incredible fine tuning in physical laws and the parameters of early expansion necessary for matter, stars, planets, and life to even be possible? and 3) What explains the origin of life and the information encoded within DNA necessary for any form of life, particularly the highly advanced forms which appeared “suddenly” (on a geological timescale) in the Cambrian explosion (ca. 540 Mya)? In each case, Meyer demonstrates quite clearly - and accurately - that there is no viable natural explanation. After explaining the current state of science on these questions, Meyer frames them within the much broader context of epistemology, logic, metaphysics, Bayesian analysis, and information theory to conclude that among all possible options, Theism offers the most probable, coherent, and intellectually satisfying answer to otherwise intractable mysteries. The science and doctrines of origins have been a hotbed of controversy for many decades. Both emotions and overconfidence run high and thoughtful dialogue is far too rare. Dr. Meyer is no hard-charging polemicist. Almost to a fault, he approaches his critics with gentleness and respect. And there have been critics, indeed. Indeed, one might frame his new work as an extended response to the most salient criticisms of the last several years. So what are those criticisms? Well, according to Wikipedia “Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God” - revealing mostly an intense, if unsophisticated, ideological bias among editors at Wikipedia. Nonetheless, Meyer thoroughly and effectively disassembles that characterization with chapter upon chapter of careful reasoning and irrefutable evidence. More thoughtful criticisms come from the scientists affiliated with BioLogos, a group founded by Francis Collins who identify themselves as evolutionary creationists. They have been frequently critical of the Discovery Institute and Intelligent Design (ID) for reasons that are more philosophical than scientific. To really understand Meyer’s argument and why he frames it as he does, it helps to understand debates of the last decade in which Meyer has been a central figure. BioLogos figures prominently in that story. In his autobiographical testimony, “The Language of God”, NIH director and former head of the human genome project describes his coming to faith after being deeply influenced by the “moral argument” for God, famously recounted by C. S. Lewis in “Mere Christianity”. Yet in Chapter 3, “The Origins of the Universe”, Dr. Collins specifically invokes Meyer’s first two arguments as convincing scientific evidence in favor of - if not completely proving - God. BioLogos mostly takes issue when Meyer steps into biology, not surprising since that was the focus of Meyer’s first two books and they primarily identify as Christians who embrace the complete evolutionary paradigm. On the matter of design, it is not as though Meyer and ID proponents have been fundamentally refuted. That would be easy if the evidence existed. One must simply account for the origin of life out of inorganic precursors, and the origin of biological information encoded in DNA, and the case would be closed. (For anyone who can do that, there is a $10,000,000 prize for the taking). The ID movement is famous for promoting the idea of “irreducible complexity” in biological structures. This has been a source of much contention and in some instances their examples have not been so compelling as first thought, but those arguments amount to little more than quibbling over examples, not the underlying principles. BioLogos has been very critical of the idea of “irreducible complexity”, but in “Return of the God Hypothesis” it is conspicuous mostly for its absence apart from the origin-of-life discussion. Another objection from the BioLogos community is that ID is guilty of a “God of the gaps” fallacy for invoking shortcomings of evolution as evidence for God. (More than one observer has noted that the same objection could be raised against the moral and cosmological arguments preferred by BioLogos). Obviously concerned with that accusation, Meyer dedicates an entire chapter (“Acts of God or God of the Gaps?) to that challenge. In this Meyer acquits himself admirably, though more could be said. Given the current state of origin-of-life research, we have not a “gap” but a massive glaring void. In “The End of Science” agnostic science writer John Horgan identified the origin of life as a problem that likely never would be solved. Twenty years later, Horgan remains just as doubtful . Now, BioLogos is concerned that the faith of some is shattered when it is based on particular “gaps” that ultimately are explained. Such would be a shallow faith indeed. They are quite correct that the faith of many has been shipwrecked on the rocks of science - sometimes by bad science, and often just because they were taught very bad science. But there’s little or no evidence that anyone’s faith has been undermined by an approach resembling that of Meyer. In principle, BioLogos objects to seeing design in biology and invoking that as evidence for God, as Meyer consistently has done. Yet sometimes their own position doesn’t come off as fully thought out. BioLogos scientists unashamedly declare themselves as believers in creation. While they explicitly reject Deism and affirm God’s subsequent intervention in human affairs and incarnation in Christ, their view of creation is such that undirected evolution is sufficient to explain the complexity and diversity of life - and ultimate appearance of humans. (“Once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required” - Collins, Language of God). Meyer notes that this necessarily imposes teleology upon evolution - itself a principle decisively rejected by almost all evolutionary biologists and for which there is no evidential support. [Although many Christians think evolution is unacceptable in any form, in practice our disagreements are really more over the scope of evolution rather than its existence. Here, for example.] Denis Lamoureux of St Joseph’s College in Alberta holds PhD’s in both theology and evolutionary biology and is credited with coining the term “evolutionary creation” (EC) favored by BioLogos. Officially he is not a part of the organization, but there is a definite symbiosis and mutual respect. As Meyer notes, Lamoureux argued that God’s plan for creating life and humans was embedded within the design of the universe from the instant of creation. Elsewhere, Lamoureux has written: “The Creator loaded into the Big Bang the plan and capability for the cosmos and living organisms, including humans, to evolve over 10-15 billion years.” According to Lamoureux, “design is evident in the finely-tuned physical laws and initial conditions necessary for the evolution of the cosmos through the Big Bang, and design is also apparent in the biological processes necessary for life to evolve, including humans with their incredibly complex brains.” [italics added] Repeatedly, he affirms the principle (and terminology) of “intelligent design” in nature affirming the handiwork of a Creator. Meyer fairly points the difficulty in seeing this position as more scientifically sound or palatable than some other version of evolution in which God is actively involved. To assume the information for life up to and including humans was embedded in the original design of the cosmos goes far beyond anything within the realm of known science. There is no known natural mechanism by which that information could have been encoded or transmitted. Meyer is silent regarding the actual scope of evolution as he sees it. But the concept of progressive creation vigorously opposed by the BioLogos community appears no less scientific or more miraculous than their proposed alternative. A crude analogy would be firing a pistol and hitting a dime on the far side of the universe. In the BioLogos view, God takes one shot and hits the target, whereas a progressive view would allow for mid-course adjustments. The latter solution is less demanding. (Of course, the analogy doesn’t account for the additional problem of how information is encoded and transmitted). Or, to look at it another way, a progressive view has God intervening in known scientific processes, whereas the EC view postulates unknown scientific processes for evolution to achieve its intended result in the complete absence of subsequent intervention. Coming from a different place on the continuum, the Old-Earth Creationist ministry Reasons to Believe has criticized Meyer and the Discovery Institute for failing to name the designer and consequently having little apologetic or evangelistic impact. This objection seems to be resolved decisively in “Return of the God Hypothesis”, as the core theme and purpose of the entire work is to show that the designer is a personal and benevolent deity who is actively involved in the course of nature and human affairs. Dr. Meyer is an exemplary writer and scholar and his new volume is a masterwork of apologetics. It will benefit students, scholars, pastors, and scientifically-minded believers who wish to strengthen their faith and those within their circle of influence. The case should be persuasive to agnostics and skeptics who are looking for honest arguments and not emotionally predisposed against theism. We should all pray that this approach will lead to more cooperation and less conflict in the arena of creation apologetics.

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.

The book gives a readable discussion of the main reasons to believe in the theistic hypothesis. These reasons are the big bang theory of creation, the fine tuning of the universe, and the information contained in DNA

Open your mind, then open the book and read. It's well worth the time and effort.

You know, I picked up "Return of the God Hypothesis" thinking, "Okay, let's see what this is all about. Science and... Yahweh? This should be interesting." What I didn't expect was for my brain to feel like it had just run a marathon through the cosmos, the Big Bang, and the intricate machinery of life itself. Stephen C. Meyer is clearly a very smart person. Like, "explains complex physics and biology in a way that makes my head spin but also kind of makes sense" smart. Reading this book felt like sitting in on a lecture from a brilliant but slightly mischievous professor who keeps pulling back the curtain on the universe and saying, "See? Isn't that weird?" He takes you on a journey through some seriously mind-bending scientific discoveries – the fine-tuning of the universe, the origin of life's information, and other things that previously existed only as vague concepts in my head. And then he lays out the case for the "God hypothesis" as a compelling explanation for why all this stuff looks so... designed. It's not a light read, mind you. There were moments where I had to reread paragraphs (sometimes multiple times) and stare blankly into space while my brain processed concepts like entropy and irreducible complexity. My cat seemed concerned by my sudden periods of deep, furrowed-brow contemplation. But Meyer has a knack for making these complex ideas accessible, even for someone whose last science class involved dissecting a frog (a traumatic event we won't dwell on). He's witty, he's thorough, and he doesn't shy away from the big questions. It's like a really well-written detective story, but the mystery is "How did all this exist?" and the prime suspect is... well, you get the idea. Whether you agree with his hypothesis or not, the journey through the scientific evidence is fascinating. It makes you think. It challenges assumptions. And it's delivered with a confidence and clarity that's genuinely impressive. If you're curious about the intersection of science and faith, enjoy having your brain stretched in new and interesting ways, and appreciate a well-argued case for a provocative idea, pick up this book. It's a intellectual workout that's both challenging and incredibly rewarding. My brain is tired, but it feels smarter, and I'm thoroughly impressed by the case Meyer presents. And I've always believed in God anyway.

Until I read how the evidence of science itself points to the existence of a mind—sometimes called God—having created the universe and life, I was, as many people seem to be, agnostic or an atheist. I believed that intelligent life evolved from lesser forms of life, and that ultimately humans exist due to this process of random mutation and “survival of the fittest” of those mutations given their environment. A crucial thing that Stephen Meyer documents in this book is that life as we know it depends on DNA (we all know that) which are the “instructions” by which the proteins needed to sustain life are formed. But in addition, and here is the most important part, DNA represents encoded “information”, and the formation of those instructions by random processes is mathematically virtually impossible. The instructions in DNA are enormously complex, and that complexity makes it impossible for them to have been formed by random processes, including chemical processes. The “scientific materialism” that arose due to the success of science and engineering in the last 200 years, and Darwin’s seemingly reasonable assertion about evolution, have created the naive thought that life arose by itself perhaps by lightning sparking through clouds of organic substances, and has evolved over millions of years into… us. I used to think that. But this book has made my thinking take a 180 degree turn. Evolution has happened, but it cannot account for the beginning of life, and it cannot account for the explosion of new life forms we now know happened in the Cambrian period, among other such times. There has to have been an intelligence guiding the formation of the “instructions” that made early life possible, and in periods such as the Cambrian era. Is that intelligence “God” in the form that one or another religion defines It (or Him, or Her)? Perhaps not, but if you would like to become religious, take your pick, there are many monotheistic religions to choose from. But regardless of your choice, take comfort in the fact the universe is not accidental, it had a beginning, and there are so very many “finely tuned” factors that makes its structure able to support life, that there is no way it could be as it is had not an intelligence designed it to be so. This is the most significant book I have ever read! It is also extremely well written; Meyer deserves to be commended for his ability to explain complex phenomenon so very clearly. I recommend this book to everyone. It can change your thinking in the same way it has changed mine! And I feel that this change in thinking is monumental!

I would like to expand on the cosmology argument presented in the book. Specifically, adding a comprehensive definition of the Laws of Nature which are pre-requisites for the Big Bang (chapter five). They are the something that exists in spacetime prior to energy creating a physical plasma of elementary particles at the start of the Big Bang. In chapter seven, fine tuning is illustrated with a universe generating machine (chapter seven page 143). It has dials for settings specific values for strength of forces, mass of particles, electron’s charge, particle density, dark energy, entropy, and cosmological constant. For our universe precise values are required (chapter eight). Taking a comprehensive view, consider that spacetime (or space) contains the framework/design for our universe. The author of a Universe from Nothing acknowledges that quantum mechanics exists in spacetime, but there is considerably more. These intangible framework prerequisites are the Laws of Nature consisting of: universal rules (mathematics, space dimensions, types of forces, types of fields, elementary particle species; laws of physics (relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism); and symmetries (Lorentz, Gauge, and symmetry breaking). Science has provided significant knowledge about these Laws of Nature. For a brief description of the Laws of Nature and their ramifications, reference the chart and description below. These pre-requisites are required prior to energy theories populating space with physical elementary particles, a quark/gluon plasma, and awakening/activating the laws of physics. Now the key question is: how were the Laws of Nature fashioned? Did they just exist or were they designed? One answer is that spacetime inherently contained these precise Laws of Nature, they just existed. This implies a perplexing degree of interrelationships among forces and fields and laws of physics, a pre-Big Bang fine tuning. Another answer introduces a multiverse scenario for the laws by proposing an infinite number of options (chapter sixteen). A third answer is that the Laws of Nature were designed by an intelligent designer. The argument for design - the Laws of Nature create a universe that lasts for trillions of years and allows various forms of life. (Although life flourishes on earth, it is true that the universe, as a whole, is vastly inhospitable to life.) If a designer, who was the designer? Is the designer: supernatural, unique, reside in abstract reality, and timeless? But these questions science cannot answer. Can we infer if one answer is more logical than the other (chapter eleven)? It appears to be a choice between a fluke, an infinite variety of Laws of Nature, or a supernatural intelligent designer. My logic: if it looks like design, it probably is. Thus, this choice further supports the biological and fine tuning arguments documented in Return of the God Hypothesis. Ramification of Laws of Nature Laws of Nature Comments on ramifications Universal Rules for our universe Mathematics Difficult to visualize anything else Dimensions Minimum of three effective dimensions required Type of forces Four forces and associated fields required Type of fields Particles, Dark energy and Higgs required Particle species Quarks, leptons, bosons, and nucleons required Laws Laws Thermodynamics Required in physics Relativity Required in cosmology Quantum Mechanics Required for atom to exist (chemistry) Electromagnetism Required for stable particles Symmetry Symmetry Lorentz Symmetry Required for conservation laws Gauge Symmetry Required in SMPP Symmetry breaking Required selectively: electroweak and matter anti-matter The left side of summarizes the ramifications of the Laws of Nature in our universe. Visualizing a universe not based on mathematics or visualizing one with more (or less) than three space dimensions challenges the imagination. The balance among the four forces is astonishing, for example, the lifetimes of stars are measured in billions and trillion of years. If we add or subtract forces, would this magical balance exist? Definitely not. The Higgs and dark energy fields are both critical to our concept of physics and cosmology. Although some particle species appear superfluous, predicting physics without them may be problematic. The laws of thermodynamics, relativity, quantum mechanics and electromagnetism comprise the foundation of physics and cosmology. They appear intuitive and logical, but delete one or more and the result is unpredictable. Conservation laws regulate particle physics and relativity. Symmetry breaking creates imbalances matter/antimatter and separates forces.

At last a systematic appeal to reason and refutation of flawed and prejudicial presuppositions. Poetically the universe is speaking to us in Psalm 19. Stephen Meyer shows us scientifically, reasonably, rationally, philosophically how that is true.

Tänkvärt.

It is a huge and comprhensive study...a synopsis of all that is said and written would be most welcome.

I think that this is a very good book with so much intellect and knowledge. It describes clearly the various routes which mankind did follow in development of our comprehension of what is going on around us. However the conclusion of that there must be a creator is so dominant. It leaves no room that this is not so absolute certain. But it is a must read to build your own knowledge. I m not convinced in the main route, and for instance the battle of the Big Bang explained that there are so many other theories open for debate. Was there a true beginning, is fine tuning just a matter of coin, or just reality other wise we where not here. What will that say that there is a clockmaker who afterwards leaves the clock?

A comprehensive collection of all arguments to best explain our universe, life and our very same essence as thinking beings. Written with passion by a philosopher of Science searching himself the meaning of everything. Highly recommendable!