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

Product Information

This book is the crowning opus in a masterful and transformative trilogy in which Stephen Meyer challenges the pretensions of presumptive naturalism in science. As Meyer shows, the God hypothesis is indispensable to science. Its return, and the re-enchantment of the world with it, is most welcome. Bruce L. Gordon, Ph.D. in Philosophy of Physics, Northwestern University; Professor, History and Philosophy of Science, Houston Baptist University In particular, to the extent that the apparent fine-tuning of constants related to gravitational attraction is prominent in these examples – and it is – we should be particularly careful, as our best quantum theories still struggle to incorporate gravity, and especially under the exotic conditions of the early universe. Anyone who wants a state-of-the-art treatise on arguments and counter arguments for intelligent design must get this book. It performs a gigaton task of covering the origin of everything from molecular machinery to the entire universe. A much-needed book. Dr. Stuart Burgess, Professor of Engineering Design, Bristol University; Research Fellow, Clare Hall, University of Cambridge. Meyer is, in my opinion, too casual in his use of the word “beginning.” In Chapter 6: The Curvature of Space and the Beginning of the Universe, he quotes Stephen Hawking and G.F.R. Ellis as writing (in The Large Scale Structure of the Universe) that the general theory of relativity implies “that there is a singularity in the past that constitutes, in some sense, a beginning of the universe.” (emphasis mine) Regarding the thesis of his book, I have a problem but I’m not quite sure how to state it. Science, including the science Meyer attempts to disprove in his book, has set itself upon the task of answering the “how, what, and when” questions: how does the world work, what laws govern it, when did or will various events occur? Meyer offers an answer to a question science doesn’t ask: “who?” Meyer wants to tell us who created the universe. He doesn’t attempt to present or defend an answer for any of the questions science asks and seeks to answer.

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. 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. 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 authorMeyer’s book is a masterclass… John C. Walton Ph.D., Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh About the Book Meyer takes on other materialist theories like the “Wheeler-DeWitt equation” and “The Mathematical Universe Hypothesis” which seek to explain away the uniqueness of our universe. He concludes with the 19 th century physicist, Ludwig Boltzmann’s postmodernist, many worlds’ cosmology in which “Boltzmann Brains” could self-assemble as the result of chance arrangements of atoms due to random quantum fluctuations. Accordingly such fluctuations at the subatomic level may cause bizarre outcomes like the Statue of Liberty waving at passers-by and, though such events may not happen in our universe, given enough universes and time, such things will happen and happen endlessly! With The Return of the God Hypothesis, Meyer has once again written a hefty book in size and subject. Nonetheless, it is a pleasure to read because of the way that his inviting voice brings light to bear on complicated and profoundly influential subjects. And while a short review cannot do justice to most books, this limitation applies five-fold to this abundantly rich book. Indeed, with this book, Meyer completes a compelling trilogy which refutes the prevailing materialism of the intelligentsia while also completing his one long argument that, in the words of Solomon, “from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator.” Pantheism asserts that God is the totality of all of nature, the Brahman of the Eastern religions. Meyer shows that pantheism cannot account for the cosmic fine-tuning we observe, because the deity that created the universe must necessarily transcend space and time. All the great religious texts of the Orient, however, describe a deity who must have begun to exist only after the universe came into existence.

Meyer fills all this in with an explanation of the Hebrew contribution to the development of science citing the lesser known historian, Edgar Zilsel. He continues with an enlightening section on the depth of Christian belief of many of the earliest scientists especially Isaac Newton whose theological writings are invariably presented as an eccentric avocation, distinct from his rigorous science. Not so, says Meyer; for Newton’s theology and science are merely another reflection of the indispensable unity between Judaism and Christianity, on the one hand, and science on the other. I believe Meyer does his readers a disservice by not accurately portraying the range of multiple-universe theories currently proposed, given that rejecting all of them is critical to his thesis. Meyer requires that there not be an infinite number of universes, either one following another throughout eternity or any number existing simultaneously in parallel. This is perhaps the strongest challenge to his argument from improbability, and it deserves to be treated with more rigor.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. Then we get to the science. Meyer asserts, based on three “scientific discoveries,” these key ideas underlying his argument: Another Attempt by an Esteemed Cosmologist to Avoid a Cosmic Beginning Collapses on Inspection” by Brian Miller at Evolution News (January 11, 2022). Nonetheless, just as a picture can be painted in different ways and a building can be constructed likewise, so too God created the world His way, making it the duty of science to find out exactly how He did it. Thus, science developed as both logical and contingent, which is to say that it strives for internal consistency and empirical validation. Meyer’s second claim is, I think, his strongest, and its defense constitutes the largest portion of his book.

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. 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 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. But wait. That is – at best – a circular argument. If we include DNA in our initial inventory of “functional” information, then it’s no longer our uniform and repeated experience that such information is the product of intelligence. Rather, it’s our uniform and repeated experience that man-made encoding of information is man-made. That says nothing about not-man-made encoding of information.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 Similarly, given that we have exactly one example of life from which to generalize in a universe likely containing literally trillions of planets, it seems prudent to hesitate before speaking with authority regarding which possible universes can and can’t support life. the genetic coding in DNA represents a kind of “functional” information that is unlikely to have arisen by chance. The book begins with a review of the relationship faith and science have enjoyed throughout history. Meyer is on solid ground when documenting the history of science, and his recounting of man’s march of discovery is readable, detailed, and entertaining. It isn’t relevant to his argument, but it is well-written and informative. That strikes me as a very bold claim. To make it, one has to believe both of the following: first, that we can accurately predict the nature of a universe that follows laws other than the laws that govern our own universe; and, secondly, that we have a reasonable understanding of the range of conditions under which intelligent life might arise, and the nature of that life, in universes both like and unlike our own.

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. Book Genre: Christian, Christianity, History, Intelligent Design, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Pseudoscience, Religion, Science, Theology 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. 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. Meyer’s book provides an especially valuable analysis of biological and cosmological fine-tuning arguments in a single, coherent narrative. Dr. David Snoke, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pittsburgh

No such thing as a self-replicating molecule

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. Perhaps there’s some meaning to the idea of certain physical constants “having different values.” It’s certainly essential to Meyer’s claim of so-called “fine tuning.” It is also certainly debatable, and debated. But as militant as Hoyle became in advancing his steady-state cosmology, the evidence for the Big Bang grew ever stronger as the twentieth century wore on. And some distinguished scientists, such as the Mount Wilson astronomer Allan Sandage, began to see the unavoidably theistic implications of a universe that had a beginning. Ultimately, the evidence for the Big Bang theory led Sandage to faith in Christ at the end of his life.