Meyer masterfully summarizes the current evidence from cosmology, physics and biology showing that the more we learn about the universe and nature, the more relevant the ‘God hypothesis’ becomes. Dr. Anthony Futerman, Joseph Meyerhoff Professor of Biochemistry, Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel Dr. Meyer does a superb job in accurately describing the physics and cosmology that show the universe had a beginning. He also convincingly shows that quantum mechanics will not eliminate a cosmological singularity. Dr. Frank Tipler, Professor of Physics, Tulane University; Co-Author, The Anthropic-Cosmological Principle (Oxford University Press). Stephen Meyer’s fine new book is aptly summarized by the opening line of Beethoven’s magnificent musical composition ‘Die Himmel rühmen des Ewigen Ehre’: ‘The heavens praise the glory of the Eternal.’ He mounts a powerful case that the best, the most reasonable, explanation for the full suite of scientific evidence about the origin and fine tuning of the universe and life is — as he puts it — ‘the God hypothesis.’” Matti Leisola, DSc, Professor Emeritus of Bioprocess Engineering, Aalto University, Finland The distinguished theoretical physicist Sir John Polkinghorne believes that cosmic fine-tuning provides very powerful evidence of design. Brian Josephson, another British Nobel Prize-winning physicist, has stated frankly that he is 80 percent confident that some kind of intelligent agency was involved in the creation of life. The same evidence caused the outspoken philosopher Antony Flew to reject his own long-time atheistic teachings, which he had clung to for most of his life, in favor of deism. As Christian astronomer Luke Barnes writes: “Fine tuning suggests that, at the deepest level that physics has reached, the universe is well put together. . . . The whole system seems well thought out, something that someone planned and created.”

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. Moot Points: Does Science Reveal the Mind of God?” with James Croft, Kevin Moss, and Joshua Kellard via Christian Heritage Cam bridge (June 18, 2021). Dennis Prager and Stephen Meyer Introduce New PragerU Video Series Making the Case for a Return of the God Hypothesis January 5, 2022

What Is Semantic Scholar?

Regarding “ How Could the Big Bang Arise From Nothing?” by Alastair Wilson at The Conversation (January 3, 2022). Stephen Meyer has written a masterpiece. The evidence for God is extensive, and now much more accessible due to his lucid exposition. Scientists and philosophers who wish that God did not exist will hate this book. Newton would have loved it. Michael Newton Keas, Ph.D. in the History of Science, University of Oklahoma; author of Unbelievable: 7 Myths About the History and Future of Science and Religion. But we are also aware of the encoding of “functional” information in a structured form in the DNA that is found in each of our cells. It follows, therefore, that this information too must be the product of intelligence, since it is our universal and repeated experience that all such information is the product of intelligence.

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. 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.

Privacy & Content Ownership

Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe 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.

Meyer lays out similar devastating arguments against other theorists who have waded in on this issue, especially Lawrence Krauss and Max Tegmark. Above all, Meyer shows that while these men may be brilliant scientists, they turn out to be very poor philosophers. Dr. Meyer’s compelling arguments for intelligent design are not without their detractors, and his latest book Return of the God Hypothesis is no exception! Here we post criticism to the arguments of the book, along with appropriate responses from the intelligent design research community. Re: Responding to Recent Attempts to Avoid a Cosmic Beginning to the Universe

from the beginning (or shortly thereafter), various physical constants have had values that are unlikely to have arisen by chance – that the universe appears to be “fine-tuned”; and 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. In any case, the fact that Meyer’s hypothesis doesn’t actually answer the questions science asks, and that it opens up a universe of new questions (where did God come from, how does God do what God does, what does the mathematics of God look like, etc.) in the process of not answering them, should give us reason to pause, at least. Meyer’s trilogy ( Signature in the Cell, Darwin’s Doubt,and now Return of the God Hypothesis)is now the most powerful challenge to scientific materialism in print today. His analysis of the central issue of the origin of genetic information is the best I’ve seen. Readers will enjoy Meyer’s brilliantly lucid and engaging style of writing, including illuminating personal anecdotes in the development of his thought.A very gratifying read indeed! Dean Kenyon, Ph.D. in biophysics, Stanford University, Professor Emeritus of Biology, San Francisco State University; Co-Author Biochemical Predestination

On the other hand, it does seem to me that Meyer would be more consistent if he argued that, since every instance of encoded information of which we’re aware is actually man-made, DNA must also be man-made. But that would be an even more absurd argument.) Then we get to the science. Meyer asserts, based on three “scientific discoveries,” these key ideas underlying his argument: Darrel Falk Downplays the Ramifications of the 2016 Royal Society Meeting” by Brian Miller at Evolution News (June 2, 2021). Since his Signature in the Cell, Stephen Meyer has been a beacon of humility, humanity, and courageous thinking in that ever-changing interface between science and religion. His new book does not prove the presence of a designing intelligence or supermind, but it certainly renders the “God hypothesis” more plausible, coherent, and respectable. Thoughtful people need no longer assume materialism, mechanism, and meaninglessness. Turns out: anything but. Dr. Jeffrey J. Kripal, J. Newton Rayzor Professor of Philosophy and Religious Thought, Rice University, author of The Flip: Epiphanies of Mind and the Future of Knowledge.Meyer argues in his book and in his numerous public appearances that, in our consistent and repeated experience, every instance of such functional information storage is the result of a guiding intelligence. It follows, he argues, that the storage of functional information in DNA must also be the product of a guiding intelligence. 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. The discovery of the functional digital information in DNA and RNA molecules in even the simplest living cells provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a role in the origin of the information necessary to produce the first living organism.