Desperate attempts have also been made by influential cosmologists to avoid the obvious theistic implications of a universe that had a definite beginning. In particular, Meyer uses his considerable skills in philosophy to debunk the lofty-sounding proclamations of celebrity cosmologists such as Lawrence Krauss, the late Stephen Hawking, and others, who have sold millions of books with headline-grabbing titles like A Universe from Nothing and The Grand Design. What did Hawking et al mean by “in some sense?” I don’t know, and Meyer doesn’t pursue it. But it’s hard to conclude that a beginning “in some sense” is the same as, simply, “a beginning.” And in fact, later Meyer quotes Ellis as observing that some cosmologists now see, in Meyer’s words, “singularity theorems as an interesting piece of pure mathematics, but not as proofs of the beginning of our actual universe.” (again, emphasis mine) Nevertheless, some materialist physicists have invoked an entirely speculative concept to explain away the creation of our fine-tuned universe: namely, the weird and wonderful “multiverse,” or as some refer to it, the “many worlds hypothesis.” Our universe appears the way it is, these advocates claim, because it is just one among an infinite number of universes whose physical laws and material properties are all different. Logic dictates that a small number of these universes must contain conditions that are ripe for the development of life and human intelligence, and ours just happens to be one of them. No creator God needed.

We are aware of numerous examples of the encoding of “functional” information in a structured form, from computer programs to grammars to all sorts of artificial symbolic schemes. PDF / EPUB File Name: Return_of_the_God_Hypothesis_-_Stephen_C_Meyer.pdf, Return_of_the_God_Hypothesis_-_Stephen_C_Meyer.epub Meyer’s book is a masterclass… John C. Walton Ph.D., Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh About the Book Darrel Falk Badly Mischaracterizes RNA World Experiments … and Stephen Meyer” by Brian Miller at Evolution News (May 28, 2021).Meyer shows how the theistic world view, creation theology and design argument have long been part of the structure of western science and motivated key figures who invented it in its modern form — including Kepler, Boyle and Newton. But Meyer also shows that today’s science makes the ‘God hypothesis’ as compelling today as it ever was. Stephen D. Snobelen, Ph.D. in History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge; Associate Professor, History of Science, University of King’s College, Halifax

Not so fast!” Einstein, in effect, said of Lemaitre‘s idea which Einstein contemptuously dismissed by saying it was, “inspired by the Christian dogma of creation, and totally unjustified from the physical point of view.” 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.” 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. Dennis Prager and Stephen Meyer Introduce New PragerU Video Series Making the Case for a Return of the God Hypothesis January 5, 2022 To make their case for the adequacy of a strictly materialistic approach to explanation in science and philosophy, defenders of this approach must first show that “gaps” in our knowledge of the materialistic causes of key events in the history of life and the universe can be filled with knowledge of an actual materialistic process capable of producing the events in question. (p. 613).”Requesting a (Partial) Retraction from Darrel Falk and BioLogos” by David Klinghoffer at Evolution News (May 28, 2021). This thinking-person’s tour of the universe visits all the important discoveries without losing the reader in facts. Meyer pulls this off brilliantly by keeping it personal, putting faces to names and displaying each not only in historical context but also within his own search for meaning. Above all, his answer is personal — not blind, pitiless forces, but a Creator who is intimately involved in our lives. Douglas Axe, Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering Caltech; Maxwell Professor of Molecular Biology, Biola University, author of Undeniable: How Biology Conforms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed If, as Meyer asserts, the God hypothesis is the single best explanation for why the universe is the way it is, can we then infer anything about the nature of that deity? Meyer discusses the three main possibilities: pantheism, deism, and theism. 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). We can see the probability argument arising from the second and third claims, that of the universe being improbably fine-tuned, and of genetic material having an improbable amount of structure and function. But the first claim is different. It isn’t a claim about probability, but rather part of a necessary precondition to all of Meyer’s arguments. It is essential to his arguments that the universe be finite. It must have had a single beginning; it must eventually end; and there can only be one of them.