Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries Revealing the Mind Behind the Universe

very good

Myers shows how recent scientific discoveries actually lead and point to a Maker of everything.

As with his previous books, Stephen Meyers latest book uses a rigorous process of elimination to assess competing worldviews about the origin of life .Atheism is eliminated as a poor explanation on the basis that evidence for the ‘ big bang’ implies that the universe had a beginning; which implies something or someone started everything off in the first place .Deism is eliminated because of the inability of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution to explain the transition from geochemistry to biochemistry , implying an intelligence intervened at at least one point in the earths geological past .Pantheism is eliminated for similar reasons as Atheism . The idea of ‘ space aliens ‘ engineering life else where and seeding it on earth, is also eliminated as these creatures would have needed to have been around before the universe existed to have started the ball rolling as it were.Alternatives such as a Universe from nothing , and the Multiverse hypothesis, are revealed as entirely hypothetical mathematical constructions ( as acknowledged by at least one of their authors ) these being based on equations which tacitly , if not explicitly, assume a beginning, which in turn has theological implications .Combined with facts from computing, that in our experience, intelligence is the only known generator of information rich super - systems , such as those found in biological organisms from the DNA upwards ; and the only remaining credible explanation is assumed to be Theism, ie the God hypothesis .Please discard a one star review above stating that this book is nonsense because’ we cannot conclude that intelligent design is the best explanation as there are lots of other potential explanations apart from intelligent design all of which we may have yet to discover. ‘ If this were the case then neither evolution , special creation nor ANY OTHER explanation could be considered good explanations because of the infinite number of alternative hypotheses available .My only criticism of this book is that it is too technical in places for the average non science reader ; but excellent and a must read neverless. Well done Proff Meyer !

Very well-argued and presented, in my opinion deals a serious, perhaps lethal, blow to nearly all forms of atheism.The idea of conserving information in particular is a legitimate thorn in the backside for a lot of theorists, who postulate complex entities such as black hole firewalls to prevent any violation of this principle, generally considered irrefutable.Surprisingly for me, the author always kept to a respectful tone when making his arguments, completely unlike the irritated, anger-filled passages of Dawkins's book.As someone agnostic at the time I read both books, this book seemed far more logical and rational to me than Dawkins's. And don't be concerned by some dieharders railing against the author or his theory as pseudoscience- after all, rogue waves were regarded as a pseudoscience as well once, and those who try to discredit a theory by pointing out some 'negative' characteristic (ie not enjoyed by scientists) commit what is generally described as a logical fallacy.If you are agnostic and want to hear both sides of the story, read this, don't get caught up in any atheism or religious circus of criticism, and decide for yourself which is more rational for you

I bought this book to find out if Meyer has lost the plot by going on about Christianity & faith, i.e. accepting beliefs without evidence, instead of depending on a rational critique of the shortcomings of materialist science which points instead to intelligent design. I thought that if he did this he would have ‘blown’ years of successful effort by the Discovery Institute to establish the bona fides of the intelligent design movement, which has so far assiduously avoided getting into creationism, and discussing ‘who’ the creator might be. I have read both Signture and Darwin’s Doubt, and together with Denton’s Evolution: a Theory in Crisis (and its follow-up Still in Crisis) & more, I do not doubt the validity of the I.D. case, and I particularly like Illustra Media’s The Information Enigma video.In my view, this latest book is an explanatory tour de force up to around page 430. However it is possible to accept a theistic conclusion, without getting into the nature of a ‘transcendental mind’ - about which we can suspect nothing apart from its existence. By that I mean that we do not have the evidence for an anthropomorphic god that is a ‘being’ (although Meyer uses that term) and certainly not one with a gender - He. Nor do we have to accept that this god is ‘personal’, a word Meyer introduces without explanation. However Meyer drops us the information that he’s a Christian and takes the unjustified position of assuming without evidence that this god is ‘benevolent’. Victims of Covid & other tragic deaths may find difficulty in accepting ‘benevolence’ claims when ‘theistic indifference’ provides an alternative view.There is a distinct problem with the word ‘God’ which puts off large numbers of people since it has accrued so many questionable connotations over previous millenia - labels such as Father, Lord, Saviour, We his children, plus the need for praise, worship and adoration; in short, religiosity. None of this is needed to accept a theistic conclusion, so it appears to me that Meyer has risked dropping the ball and short changing the ID movement by not keeping his head down about this; & leaving others to come to their own conclusions. Accepting theism as a powerful theoretical solution to the the Big Questions of Existence that materialism fails to answer adequately, does not require religious faith. The notion of ‘God creating us in his image’ - a closing idea from a guy called Platinga, is simply guesswork and a no no from a rational perspective.One thing that strikes me is that Meyer appears to assume that death is final. He barely refers to consciousness as a possibly fundamental quality of the universe, but there is plenty of empirical evidence supporting consciousness surviving the death of the body, with numerous reputable scientists & others backing this possibility. To ignore this as ‘simply unwarranted’ is not unlike materialists refusing in principle to consider intelligent design theory. String theory with eleven dimensions but no evidence - yes let’s talk about that! A single spiritual dimension for which there is empirical evidence. Well no, that doesn’t deserve comment (even though it may support a theistic conclusion!). I realise that spiritualism has gone out of fashion, but if consciousness really does survive the death of the body as the evidence suggests, the ball game Meyer has been writing about is altogether bigger and different from his thesis. However i do not wish to run this book down. There is a huge amount of valuable content in most of it.

I had heard Stephen Meyer on a YT program, and thought his premise was so interesting and well thought out that I needed to read more about this. I’d really recommend this book to anyone. It’s an easily understandable read, and very well written. After being bombarded with the ‘science’ about our physical world, while in school, the idea that, for example, the genetic code is similar in idea to a computer code, and needs a programmer, rather than just random luck, is beyond compelling.

Most modern scientists bend over backwards separating God from science, so I was glad to see Meyer desisting from his noncommittal stance (in previous books) regarding the ‘Designer.’ He shows how, historically, science shifted from ‘God-driven’ to ‘God-excluding.’ Yet, in his book ‘The God Delusion’ (p.82), self-declared atheist Richard Dawkins writes, “The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question, even if it is not in practice … a decided one.” I agree with Dawkins here, and we should accept his challenge—as this book does admirably. “Attack is the best form of defence.” In this book’s prologue, Meyer laments, “All this high-profile science-based skepticism about God has percolated into the popular consciousness.” (p.10 of 892) He ends up dwarfing both Stephen Hawking and Dawkins. He shows Hawking often confused theory with reality (p.651), and he makes Dawkins eat his own words (that the universe exhibits no design) because throughout this book, he shows, over and over, that there is intelligent design both in the universe and life.Main ThemeMeyer backs his ‘return of the God hypothesis’ with “(1) evidence from cosmology suggesting the material universe had a beginning; (2) evidence from physics showing that from the beginning the universe has been ‘finely tuned’ to allow for the possibility of life; and (3) evidence from biology establishing that since the beginning large amounts of new functional genetic information have arisen in our biosphere to make new forms of life possible.” (p.13)Causes versus LawsWith impeccable logic, Meyer (a philosopher of science) clarifies, “Causes and scientific laws are not the same thing. Causes are typically particular events … that precede other events and meet specific logical and contextual criteria. Laws, by contrast describe general relationships between different types of events or variables.” (p.564) For example, the ‘law of momentum conservation’ describes how a ball behaves after it’s hit by another. But the law doesn’t create the balls nor cause their initial motion: both must exist beforehand. Great scientists like Lawrence Krauss and Hawking confuse these two concepts.MethodologyMeyer doesn’t try to prove God’s existence logically through ‘deductive arguments’ (p.372), he uses ‘abductive methods’: “inferring past conditions or causes from present clues” (p.284). In his book ‘On the Origin of Species,’ Charles Darwin used similar logic to propose his ‘theory of evolution.’ He considered how ‘breeding’ could improve certain characteristics of domestic animals and concluded that, given much more time (extrapolating), ‘natural selection’ could produce new species. Indeed, “Philosopher of physics Robin Collins … argues … we should prefer hypotheses ‘that are natural extrapolations of what we already know about the causal powers of various kinds of entities.’” (p.514)Moreover, quoting Dawkins’s ‘River out of Eden’ (p.133), “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose … nothing but blind, pitiless indifference,” Meyer agrees, in principle, that our observations of nature should reflect what to expect its ‘source’ to be like (p.345).Considering the universe’s fine-tuning and the large amount of information in living organisms, Meyer points out, “We have observed intelligent agents (and only intelligent agents) producing highly improbable systems … that exemplify a set of functional requirements, whether finely tuned Swiss watches, digital computers, engines, recipes, [books,] or coded messages.” (p.634) Consequently, Meyer posits an ‘intelligent agent’ as the universe’s and life’s ‘only’ possible cause.Universe’s Origin(1) Steady State: Matter and energy were thought to be eternal; so scientists didn’t need to postulate a ‘creator’ (p.82).(2) Big-Bang Theory: This implies the universe had a beginning; so something ‘external’ must have started it: it couldn’t have created itself (p.21).(3) Oscillating Universe: Only an oscillating universe could be both eternal and have a ‘beginning.’ But by the ‘second law of thermodynamics,’ the ‘entropy’ of an isolated system must always increase. This precludes an ‘eternally’ oscillating universe since the previous cycles would be more efficient and therefore of shorter and shorter duration: again implying a beginning (p.163).Universe’s Fine-TuningMany scientists confirm the universe is balanced on a knife edge (p.771 n.33). In his article ‘The Universe: Past and Present Reflections,’ astrophysicist Fred Hoyle (a former atheist) wrote, “A common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics as well as with chemistry and biology.” (pp.216-17) Not only is our universe fine-tuned for life, it’s also “a universe designed for discovery” (p.767 n.11).(1) Anthropic Principle: This is a circular argument, unworthy of an intelligent person: unless one assumes the existence of a ‘multiverse’ (see below).(2) Starry Universe: According to mathematical physicist Roger Penrose, the odds against a ‘starry’ universe, as opposed to a ‘black-hole’ universe, are 1010123 or 10^(10^123) to 1 (p.235). This number is unimaginably large: it’s 1 followed by 10123 (or 10^123) zeros; there aren’t enough elementary particles in the universe (1080=10^80) to represent just the zeros of this number. Stars (like the sun) are absolutely necessary for life to survive or even exist: life’s very chemicals (like carbon & oxygen) are formed on stars.(3) Cosmological Constant: This “represents the energy density of space that contributes to the outward expansion”; it’s fine-tuned to about 1 part in 10120 (10^120) or 1 followed by 120 zeros (pp.237-38).(4) Inflation: Meyer annotates, “Physicists first proposed inflationary cosmology to explain several puzzling features of the universe … [like] its relative homogeneity especially in the temperature of the cosmic background radiation [and] the flatness of the universe.” (p.498) It turned out to be more of a headache: he observes, “The universe-generating mechanism in inflationary cosmology … requires more fine-tuning than it was proposed to explain.” (p.518) We have no evidence of an ‘inflation field,’ but it supported the ‘multiverse.’Life’s OriginIn his book ‘Signature in the Cell,’ Meyer shows, “The presence of roughly 500 or more bits of specified information reliably indicates intelligent design in a prebiotic context.” (p.776 n.50)(1) Proteins: There, he also shows, “The probability of producing even a single functional protein of modest length (150 amino acids) by chance alone in a prebiotic environment … [is] 1 chance in 10164 [(10^164) or 1 followed by 164 zeros]. … Even if every event in the entire history of the universe … were devoted to producing combinations of amino acids of a given length … the number of combinations thus produced would still represent … less than one out of a trillion trillion [1024=10^24]—of the total number of possible amino-acid combinations corresponding to a functional protein … of that given length.” (pp.271-72)(2) DNA: “In DNA,” Meyer states, “No chemical bonds link bases … in the message-bearing axis of the molecule. … The same kind of chemical bonds link the different nucleotide bases to the sugar-phosphate backbone of the molecule. … These two features of the molecule ensure that any nucleotide base can attach to the backbone at any site with equal ease.” (p.276) Meyer rules out chemical/physical affinity: “Chemistry and physics alone could not produce information any more than ink and paper could produce information in a book.” (p.284)(3) RNA: Most evolutionary biologists propose life’s starting from RNA ‘replicators’ that eventually evolved to eukaryotic cells. There’s a lot of hype concerning this ‘RNA-world hypothesis.’ “However,” Meyer writes, “Attempts to enhance the limited catalytic properties of RNA molecules in ‘ribozyme-engineering’ experiments have inevitably required extensive investigator manipulation, thus simulating, if anything, the need for intelligent design.” (p.281)Chemists John Sutherland, Matthew Powner, and Béatrice Gerland successfully synthesized a pyrimidine ribonucleotide starting with several simple chemical compounds. Meyer comments, “Not only did this study fail to address the problem of getting nucleotide bases into functionally specified sequences, but to the extent it succeeded in producing biologically relevant constituents of RNA, the study illustrated the indispensable role of intelligence in generating such chemistry.” (p.471)Biochemists Tracy Lincoln and Gerald Joyce claim to have created a self-replicating RNA molecule. Meyer comments, “Their version of ‘self-replication,’ … amounted to nothing more than joining two sequence-specific premade halves together. More significantly … [they] intelligently arranged the base sequences in these RNA chains.” (pp.471-72) It’s amazing how biologists look at their pathetic achievements through a magnifying glass and clutch at straws.Moreover, “RNA-world advocates offer no possible explanation how primitive RNA replicators might have evolved into modern cells.” (p.281)EvolutionMeyer reminds us, “Darwin’s theory of biological evolution did not explain, or attempt to explain, how the first life … might have arisen.” (p.264)Biologists noticed, “Microevolutionary changes … merely use or express existing genetic information, while the macroevolutionary change necessary to assemble new organs or whole body plans requires the production of new genetic information.” (p.303) This “challenged a key tenet of neo-Darwinian synthesis, namely, the idea that small-scale microevolutionary changes can be extrapolated to explain large-scale macroevolutionary innovations.” (p.303) “Major … variations … inevitably produce dysfunction, deformities, or even death. Only minor variations would be viable and therefore heritable.” (p.296)(1) Cambrian Explosion: Meyer states, “Although the Cambrian explosion of animals … is especially striking, it is far from the only ‘explosion’ of new living forms. … Many other groups appear abruptly in the fossil record.” (p.295) A recent study on the genetic diversity of animal phyla, confirmed, “internal genomic changes were as important as external factors in the emergence of [the Cambrian explosion] animals” (p.808 n.36) It’s not just a rewiring of the developmental gene regulatory networks (dGRNs); besides, any minor tweaking of dGRNs proved catastrophic.(2) Fossil Record: Meyer continues, “The fossil record … documents the origin of major innovation in biological form and function. These episodes … often occur abruptly or discontinuously.” (p.295) Then they disappear just as suddenly: indeed, ‘geological time’ refers to the presence of certain fossils in various eras. In his book ‘On the Origin of Species’ (pp 396–97), Darwin admits, “To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.” (p.776 n.3)MultiverseThis is fantasy, not science; ‘theoretically,’ we can never access these universes: it’s a hypothesis that cannot be tested. What kind of science is that? It’s blind faith! This concept was invented to make sense of the ‘Anthropic Principle.’String TheoryThis is much-ado-about-nothing—a bankrupt hypothesis. In his book ‘The Trouble with Physics’ (p.270), theoretical physicist Lee Smolin (who originally believed in it) writes, “String theorists … have no idea what it really is.” String theory tried to reconciling general relativity with quantum mechanics (p.811 n.11). It proposes 101000 (10^1000 or 1 followed by 1,000 zeros) solutions to its equations: thus giving some support to the ‘multiverse’ (p.505).ConclusionThis book is extremely well researched, delving deep into science and philosophy: some sections might be too technical for the average reader. It’s excellent at integrating science and religion: an ideal textbook for advanced religion classes. Two concepts, I found, most interesting:(1) A ‘deistic’ proposal for the universe’s and life’s origin doesn’t cut it ‘scientifically’: only a ‘theistic’ explanation does. So God was (probably still is) personally involved in directing our existence (p.447): he’s not just an absentee landlord. Meyer argues, “If biological information arose well after the beginning of the universe and did so by intelligent design … that would seem to suggest a designing intelligence acting well after the beginning of time.” (p.433)(2) ‘Intelligent design’ is not just a lazy cop-out for yet-unexplained phenomena—a ‘god-of-the-gaps.’ It’s scientifically and philosophically the best explanation—to the ‘hands-down’ exclusion of all other materialistic explanations—probably including any future materialistic explanations. The scientific ‘gaps’ stem from a ‘dogmatic’ assumption that only materialistic explanations count. Since Dawkins opines that whether God exists is a scientific question, if, after considering the universe’s ‘total probabilistic resources’, the odds against something happening naturally or by chance are astronomically high, one must consider divine intervention.Finally, Meyer’s candid wish against theism (p. 671), gives more credence to his hypothesis.

Me encantó el libro, aún lo estoy leyendo pero es muy informativo si te interesa saber sobre historia de la ciencia y cómo esta no está en conflicto con la existencia de Dios. Llegó en tiempo y en buen estado.

O autor renova a Filosofia da Ciência, restaurando a racionalidade máxima possível, que aponta para a existência de Deus e para sua ação como Criador de todas as coisas, e que atua no curso da história cósmica.O livro representa um marco na revolução pelo que passa o pensamento contemporâneo, superando as insuficiências das ideias materialistas seculares.Esperei mais de um ano pelo lançamento, com a encomenda feita muito antecipadamente, tendo minhas expectativas sido satisfeitas e superadas.

incomprensibile

In this extensively researched, meticulously documented 450-page tome, Dr. Meyer zeroes in on three of the most challenging questions in the science of origins: 1) If the “Big Bang” caused the universe, what caused the “Big Bang”? 2) What accounts for the incredible fine tuning in physical laws and the parameters of early expansion necessary for matter, stars, planets, and life to even be possible? and 3) What explains the origin of life and the information encoded within DNA necessary for any form of life, particularly the highly advanced forms which appeared “suddenly” (on a geological timescale) in the Cambrian explosion (ca. 540 Mya)? In each case, Meyer demonstrates quite clearly - and accurately - that there is no viable natural explanation. After explaining the current state of science on these questions, Meyer frames them within the much broader context of epistemology, logic, metaphysics, Bayesian analysis, and information theory to conclude that among all possible options, Theism offers the most probable, coherent, and intellectually satisfying answer to otherwise intractable mysteries.The science and doctrines of origins have been a hotbed of controversy for many decades. Both emotions and overconfidence run high and thoughtful dialogue is far too rare. Dr. Meyer is no hard-charging polemicist. Almost to a fault, he approaches his critics with gentleness and respect. And there have been critics, indeed. Indeed, one might frame his new work as an extended response to the most salient criticisms of the last several years.So what are those criticisms? Well, according to Wikipedia “Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God” - revealing mostly an intense, if unsophisticated, ideological bias among editors at Wikipedia. Nonetheless, Meyer thoroughly and effectively disassembles that characterization with chapter upon chapter of careful reasoning and irrefutable evidence.More thoughtful criticisms come from the scientists affiliated with BioLogos, a group founded by Francis Collins who identify themselves as evolutionary creationists. They have been frequently critical of the Discovery Institute and Intelligent Design (ID) for reasons that are more philosophical than scientific. To really understand Meyer’s argument and why he frames it as he does, it helps to understand debates of the last decade in which Meyer has been a central figure. BioLogos figures prominently in that story.In his autobiographical testimony, “The Language of God”, NIH director and former head of the human genome project describes his coming to faith after being deeply influenced by the “moral argument” for God, famously recounted by C. S. Lewis in “Mere Christianity”. Yet in Chapter 3, “The Origins of the Universe”, Dr. Collins specifically invokes Meyer’s first two arguments as convincing scientific evidence in favor of - if not completely proving - God. BioLogos mostly takes issue when Meyer steps into biology, not surprising since that was the focus of Meyer’s first two books and they primarily identify as Christians who embrace the complete evolutionary paradigm.On the matter of design, it is not as though Meyer and ID proponents have been fundamentally refuted. That would be easy if the evidence existed. One must simply account for the origin of life out of inorganic precursors, and the origin of biological information encoded in DNA, and the case would be closed. (For anyone who can do that, there is a $10,000,000 prize for the taking). The ID movement is famous for promoting the idea of “irreducible complexity” in biological structures. This has been a source of much contention and in some instances their examples have not been so compelling as first thought, but those arguments amount to little more than quibbling over examples, not the underlying principles. BioLogos has been very critical of the idea of “irreducible complexity”, but in “Return of the God Hypothesis” it is conspicuous mostly for its absence apart from the origin-of-life discussion.Another objection from the BioLogos community is that ID is guilty of a “God of the gaps” fallacy for invoking shortcomings of evolution as evidence for God. (More than one observer has noted that the same objection could be raised against the moral and cosmological arguments preferred by BioLogos). Obviously concerned with that accusation, Meyer dedicates an entire chapter (“Acts of God or God of the Gaps?) to that challenge. In this Meyer acquits himself admirably, though more could be said. Given the current state of origin-of-life research, we have not a “gap” but a massive glaring void. In “The End of Science” agnostic science writer John Horgan identified the origin of life as a problem that likely never would be solved. Twenty years later, Horgan remains just as doubtful .Now, BioLogos is concerned that the faith of some is shattered when it is based on particular “gaps” that ultimately are explained. Such would be a shallow faith indeed. They are quite correct that the faith of many has been shipwrecked on the rocks of science - sometimes by bad science, and often just because they were taught very bad science. But there’s little or no evidence that anyone’s faith has been undermined by an approach resembling that of Meyer.In principle, BioLogos objects to seeing design in biology and invoking that as evidence for God, as Meyer consistently has done. Yet sometimes their own position doesn’t come off as fully thought out. BioLogos scientists unashamedly declare themselves as believers in creation. While they explicitly reject Deism and affirm God’s subsequent intervention in human affairs and incarnation in Christ, their view of creation is such that undirected evolution is sufficient to explain the complexity and diversity of life - and ultimate appearance of humans. (“Once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required” - Collins, Language of God). Meyer notes that this necessarily imposes teleology upon evolution - itself a principle decisively rejected by almost all evolutionary biologists and for which there is no evidential support. [Although many Christians think evolution is unacceptable in any form, in practice our disagreements are really more over the scope of evolution rather than its existence. Here, for example.]Denis Lamoureux of St Joseph’s College in Alberta holds PhD’s in both theology and evolutionary biology and is credited with coining the term “evolutionary creation” (EC) favored by BioLogos. Officially he is not a part of the organization, but there is a definite symbiosis and mutual respect. As Meyer notes, Lamoureux argued that God’s plan for creating life and humans was embedded within the design of the universe from the instant of creation.Elsewhere, Lamoureux has written: “The Creator loaded into the Big Bang the plan and capability for the cosmos and living organisms, including humans, to evolve over 10-15 billion years.” According to Lamoureux, “design is evident in the finely-tuned physical laws and initial conditions necessary for the evolution of the cosmos through the Big Bang, and design is also apparent in the biological processes necessary for life to evolve, including humans with their incredibly complex brains.” [italics added] Repeatedly, he affirms the principle (and terminology) of “intelligent design” in nature affirming the handiwork of a Creator.Meyer fairly points the difficulty in seeing this position as more scientifically sound or palatable than some other version of evolution in which God is actively involved. To assume the information for life up to and including humans was embedded in the original design of the cosmos goes far beyond anything within the realm of known science. There is no known natural mechanism by which that information could have been encoded or transmitted. Meyer is silent regarding the actual scope of evolution as he sees it. But the concept of progressive creation vigorously opposed by the BioLogos community appears no less scientific or more miraculous than their proposed alternative. A crude analogy would be firing a pistol and hitting a dime on the far side of the universe. In the BioLogos view, God takes one shot and hits the target, whereas a progressive view would allow for mid-course adjustments. The latter solution is less demanding. (Of course, the analogy doesn’t account for the additional problem of how information is encoded and transmitted). Or, to look at it another way, a progressive view has God intervening in known scientific processes, whereas the EC view postulates unknown scientific processes for evolution to achieve its intended result in the complete absence of subsequent intervention.Coming from a different place on the continuum, the Old-Earth Creationist ministry Reasons to Believe has criticized Meyer and the Discovery Institute for failing to name the designer and consequently having little apologetic or evangelistic impact. This objection seems to be resolved decisively in “Return of the God Hypothesis”, as the core theme and purpose of the entire work is to show that the designer is a personal and benevolent deity who is actively involved in the course of nature and human affairs.Dr. Meyer is an exemplary writer and scholar and his new volume is a masterwork of apologetics. It will benefit students, scholars, pastors, and scientifically-minded believers who wish to strengthen their faith and those within their circle of influence. The case should be persuasive to agnostics and skeptics who are looking for honest arguments and not emotionally predisposed against theism. We should all pray that this approach will lead to more cooperation and less conflict in the arena of creation apologetics.