The thesis of this book is that modern scientific discoveries testify to the idea that a mind vastly superior to our own not only created the universe, but also purposefully arranged for it to have precisely the properties required for human life to exist and flourish. Meyer examines three seminal scientific discoveries to support his thesis: (1) that organisms contain biological information whose source cannot be merely physical or material; (2) that the laws of physics have been finely tuned to sustain life in general and human life in particular; and (3) that the universe had a specific beginning in space and time. Is ‘rewiring’ even feasible? Note that the dGRN cannot be subject to step-by-step testing of random mutations by natural selection, as demanded by evolution, and as explained by Meyer: Premise Three: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate explanation for the origin of the specified information in the cell. There is a widely held belief that our universe is a very improbable place, and that if any one of a few physical constants differed from its current value by an almost unimaginably small amount, the result would be a universe that could not contain us as observers. Some argue that such apparent precision is unlikely to occur naturally, and so is evidence of intelligence: that these constants were “fine-tuned” to be precisely what is necessary to allow the universe to develop as it has.

A hundred years ago our best and brightest argued over whether our galaxy was the only one, and whether the universe was older than we now know our own planet to be. We knew a lot – and, it turns out, we knew almost nothing.This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science. Brian Josephson, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge, Fellow of the Royal Society, Nobel Laureate in Physics It’s worth noting that there is a great deal we still don’t know about the only universe of which we’re aware, the one we can actually observe. And it’s worth noting that we really don’t understand the mechanisms of intelligence, nor the mechanisms by which life emerged, nor whether there is life anywhere else in our universe including on those planets and satellites within reach of our own small blue orb. Speaking of Roger Penrose, I find the omission of his Conformal Cyclic Cosmology theory odd. Meyer cites Penrose dozens of times in his book, but I’ve found only two references to Penrose’s own recent (2010) theory of how the universe might recur endlessly, both in the footnotes and neither actually engaging the theory. Meyer spends time critiquing less mainstream theories, including that of Max Tegmark whose theory, as Meyer describes it, claims that “every possible mathematical structure imaginable has a physical expression in some possible universe” or, quoting Tegmark now, “All structures that exist mathematically exist also physically.” This seems to me to be a peculiar prioritization on Meyer’s part, and makes me wonder if he is being perhaps too selective in the theories he chooses to present to his readers. The problem with this is that the supernatural explanation he offers is unfalsifiable. What happens if, subsequent to that, another naturalistic explanation is presented that has not yet been falsified? We now have two unfalsified explanations — one of which is, by its nature, unfalsifiable. Nothing can displace the inherently unfalsifiable explanation, whereas the other will always be, in principle, at risk of falsification: it will never be able to achieve the status of the unfalsifiable proposition.

Meyer not only meticulously documents his scientific case for the God hypothesis, but he presents the story of the discoveries that support it in an engaging way. The arguments Meyer makes helped fuel my own personal transition from atheistic materialism to a rational belief in classical theism. Günter Bechly,Ph.D. in paleontology, Eberhard-KarlsUniversity of Tübingen; Former Scientific Curator, State Museum of Natural History, Stuttgart, Germany; Senior scientist, Biologic Institute. Any electrician or electrical engineer—indeed, anyone who works with actual circuitry and a power supply with current passing through the circuit—knows that successful rewiring requires well-informed decisions, that is, both information and intelligent design. What rewiring manifestly does not allow is random changes. That’s a great way to burn down your house or blow out the mother-board of your computer [emphasis in original]” (p. 317). The nylonase novelty that is not

Not a GOTG (God of the Gaps)

Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no materialistic causes have been discovered with the power to produce large amounts of specified information required to produce the first cell.

Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information. Meyer relates how many of the great astronomical minds of the era found such origin stories “philosophically repugnant” and went to great lengths to repudiate them. In fact, the distinguished British astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle coined the phrase “Big Bang” as a term of derision. He countered the idea of the universe having a definite beginning with his own “steady state” theory of a universe that was infinitely old. This was the conservative view among scientific materialists at the time. Weaving together philosophy, history and science in lucid prose, Meyer skewers materialism for its inability to create the information necessary to a universe teeming with life. The claim that the God hypothesis is unscientific is laid bare as a red herring. Paul Ashby, Ph.D., Physical Chemistry, Harvard University; Staff Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory The dGRNs govern the timing and expression of genetic information during animal development. As Meyer explains, “These networks of genes and gene products function much like integrated circuits and ensure that the developing organism produces the right proteins at the right times to service the right types of cells during embryological development” (p. 311).

Scientific discoveries because of, not in spite of, the religious beliefs of early modern scientists

Some critics have argued that religious belief is a drag on scientific thinking, effectively a science stopper, and that the achievements of early modern scientists only came when they separated their religious beliefs from their studies. Others have asserted that there is no relationship between science and the Christian worldview. After all, religion was dominant at the time, so it is hardly surprising that most scientists also were religious. He realizes that the presence of God was not incidental; it was part and parcel of the everyday scientific reasoning of the early modern scientists. Exhibiting deep and broad research, familiarity with recent developments, and forged in a life of debate and dialogue with those with whom Meyer differs, it is hard to imagine a more important book on this topic. Stephen Meyer is one of those generational thinkers whose courage, thought and influence are pervasive on the world-stage. Dr. JP Moreland, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, Biola University; Author, Scientism and Secularism. A meticulously researched, lavishly illustrated, and thoroughly argued case against the new atheism. Even if your mind is made up — especially if it is — Meyer’s refreshing take on humanity’s most unbridgeable divide—between secular and divine accounts of origins of the Universe—is a joy to read. You may not come away convinced, but you’ll be richer for the journey. Dr. Brian Keating, Chancellor’s Distinguished Professor of Physics, University of California, San Diego. Author, Losing the Nobel Prize: A Story of Cosmology, Ambition, and the Perils of Science’s Highest Honor. This book presents a captivating overview of a range of scientific evidences that cumulatively point to the existence of a Creator, and a compelling refutation of the superficial objections of the New Atheists. A must-read for anyone interested in the Big Questions. Andrew T. Loke, PhD, King’s College London, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Hong Kong Baptist University, Author, God and Ultimate Origins Meyer doesn’t like this phrase, and I can understand why. We humans have a long tradition of invoking deities to fill the gaps in our understanding of the material universe. We have probably done it since our earliest moments of awareness – indeed, the utility of having that comforting and ready answer might, one can easily believe, be why we are inclined to believe in the supernatural.