Now we think we know that most of the handful of (what we think are) fundamental forces and particles are mathematically conjoined, not truly independent of each other. It is no longer safe to assume that any of these things is truly independent of the others. And, just as it is nonsensical to speak of, say, the value of pi changing in relation to the circumference and diameter of a circle – because it is inherently linked to and constrained by both of those things – it may be nonsensical to speak of any given physical constant changing as well. What does “thorough” mean, in this context? How does “Despite a thorough search” differ from “Thus far?” What aspect of knowledge does Meyer believe we have exhausted, in our thorough but failed search? Meyer is a science historian, and his account of the evolution of scientific theory regarding the origin of our universe is readable, detailed, and interesting. Most of what we think of as modern cosmology is quite modern, much of it less than a hundred years old, and some of it only a few decades old. It’s sobering to realize how much of what we know we figured out in just the last 50 years. Meyer goes on to describe a meeting entitled New Trends in Evolutionary Biology which he attended in 2016. The meeting, he states was about “perceived inadequacies in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution.” I was at the meeting also, and in one sense I think he is right. The theme of the meeting was that classic gene-based studies of how evolution works were giving a far-too-narrow picture of how the process of evolution has taken place. There is simply much more to the story than that—which emerges when the focus is on genes; a more holistic approach is required.

Some non-sentient but unknown natural mechanism, of which we are as yet completely and utterly unaware, established the conditions under which our observable universe exists and the life within it flourishes.” Consider Einstein’s theories of special and general relativity. Until barely a hundred years ago we didn’t know that space, time, mass, and energy were mathematically related. We didn’t know that these aspects of the physical world were intertwined in mathematically determined and measurable ways, and that a value in one domain couldn’t be “changed” without influencing the other domains as well.Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information. 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 Is Not Your Father’s Creationism”: Atheist Michael Shermer Meets Stephen Meyer” by David Klinghoffer at Evolution News (June 2, 2021). But no, we aren’t sure that the universe had a beginning. We admit that things – matter, energy, physical laws, the nature of space and time itself – were likely very different when the stuff of a billion trillion stars occupied a volume vastly smaller than a pinhead. (How many stars can dance on the head of a pin? All of them, it seems.) But we don’t know how they were different. Nor do we know what came before, nor what prompted the expansion, nor whether it happened exactly once or infinitely many times, or indeed whether or not it’s happening right now elsewhere in our own universe. We speak informally of the Big Bang as the beginning of our universe, but all we really know with confidence is that it was a moment in an evolving series of physical states. We don’t know what states came before, nor what states will follow our own.

Meyer believes that the Cambrian explosion creates a major crisis for the theory of evolution; he thinks there was a significant unexplained increase in genetic information that entered the biological world at that time. I think any evolutionary biologist would, upon reading his work, say that Meyer does not fully appreciate the power of gene duplication and mutation in generating new proteins and changing the way that gene regulatory networks function. One of the mysteries that, according to Meyer, “Neo-Darwinism fails to explain” is the evolutionary transition from the fins of fish to the limbs of land animals (p. 303). This, and other challenges like it, is simply no longer the mystery he thinks it is. In fact, Gerd Muller, that first speaker at the 2016 meeting, wrote: The error seems too obvious to be overlooked, too often emphasized by Meyer to be accidental, and, frankly, too flagrant to be wholly innocent. Again, perhaps I am misunderstanding his argument in some way which will be immediately evident when it’s explained to me. With this book, Stephen Meyer earns a place in the pantheon of distinguished, non-reductive natural philosophers of the last 120 years, from the great French savant Pierre Duhem, through A.N. Whitehead, to Michael Polanyi…He has written a profound, judicious book of great value bringing to bear both advanced, detailed scientific expertise (Pascal: “l’esprit géométrique”) and philosophical, integrative wisdom (“l’esprit de finesse”). Dr. Michael D. Aeschliman, emeritus professor Boston University, author The Restoration of Man: C.S. Lewis and the Continuing Case Against Scientism. Then we get to the science. Meyer asserts, based on three “scientific discoveries,” these key ideas underlying his argument: In The Return of the God Hypothesis, Stephen Meyer presents a variety of other scientists who may not have agreed with Hoyle but in one way or another contribute to Meyer’s thesis that science points to the existence of the Judeo-Christian God.A comprehensive and lucid argument for theism as the best explanation for the scientific evidence. Stephen Meyer has a true gift for conveying complex concepts clearly. Dr. Robert Kaita, former Principal Research Physicist, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. Philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer builds a clear, cogent, and compelling case for theism based on the most current findings of cosmology, physics, and biology. He bases his stunning conclusion — that the evidence points toward a personal Creator — on persuasive facts and convincing logic. This masterful book should be required reading for anyone grappling with the ultimatemysteries of the cosmos. Lee Strobel, New York Times best-selling author A Philosopher Takes on Meyer’s God Hypothesis” by David Klinghoffer at Evolution News (June 22, 2021). Instances of functional information storage in DNA both predate and outnumber every form which we can trace to an intelligent source – that is, every form which was created by man. Our actual experience is that every cell in every organism contains a vast amount of structured, functional information for which we can identify no creating intelligence. There is no basis, therefore, for his oft-repeated claim that, in our consistent experience, such storage is an artifact of intelligence, and the fact that he continues to repeat the claim strikes me as peculiar.

Another Attempt by an Esteemed Cosmologist to Avoid a Cosmic Beginning Collapses on Inspection” by Brian Miller at Evolution News (January 11, 2022). But, as Meyer points out, each of these rationales involves monumental question begging; that is, each assumes the prior existence of features of our universe like gravity, matter, time, reliable mathematics and so on which themselves demand explanations.

The nylonase novelty that is not

the genetic coding in DNA represents a kind of “functional” information that is unlikely to have arisen by chance. Not since Robert Jastrow’s God and the Astronomers, has a book touched me with the power of science to declare the glories of God. Jastrow kept me from the deism and atheism of college physics, and this book will surely have that same effect on the next generation. Whereas Jastrow left off too soon, Meyer skillfully follows the evidence to its logical and scientific conclusion, by examining recent developments not only in physics and cosmology, but also in biology. Warmly written with a historian’s eye, illustrated profusely, a perfect graduation gift for all those embarking on a lifetime of discovery. Rob Sheldon, Ph.D. in Space Plasma Physics, University of Maryland; former NASA analyst and instrument designer, Author, The Long Ascent Darrel Falk’s Volte-Face on the Cambrian Explosion” by Casey Luskin at Evolution News (June 1, 2021). Building on his previous best-selling works, Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt, which examined the implications of biological information, Meyer now brings cosmic fine tuning and the origination of the universe in a Hot Big Bang singularity into the discussion to argue persuasively that the single best explanation for all three phenomena is a personal God who transcends the spacetime continuum and has intervened throughout cosmic history to ensure that creatures shaped in his image would one day appear on earth. Moreover, it turns out that we live in precisely the kind of universe that can allow living things to exist in the first place, not to mention allowing human life to flourish. Specifically, if the strengths of the various forces of nature or the properties of the particles comprising the material universe were only very slightly different, we simply wouldn’t exist at all. This is known as the fine-tuning problem. Meyer reminds us that some of the best minds in the industry have been thinking deeply about it.