A low-resolution snapshot of the book

In the 19th century, the scientific consensus was that God was not needed to explain the universe because the universe had always existed. That the universe had always existed went back to the ancient Greeks. Even St Thomas Aquinas was careful to construct his 5 proofs for the existence of God on this supposition.


But things changed in the 20th century, and science has now given us more reason to believe in God than ever before. That many people don't realize this only demonstrates that recent scientific findings have not yet seeped into the popular imagination. 


What follows is a low resolution snapshop of the three most important ideas in the book. Please read the book for a more precise presentation. 


1) The Big Bang


Contributing to the discovery of the "Big Bang" was a Belgian Catholic priest by the name of Georges Lemaître. That the universe had a beginning was incoherent to the leading scientists of the day who were prejudiced against such ideas. Nevertheless, Albert Einstein and others soon came to accept the theory.  


Astronomers had noticed that galaxies in every quadrant of the sky are moving away from us. This can be known by observing the redness in the light from distant galaxies. We can then extrapolate back to a time when all of the universe was condensed into a singularity. But if the universe, and time itself, had a beginning, then an explanation for that beginning is required. 


Wanting to avoid God as an explanation, some scientists posited the "Big Crunch." Perhaps the universe will eventually stop expanding and contract back into itself. There may then be an infinite series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches, and the universe has always existed after all. 


But this theory was disproven when it was discovered that the rate at which the universe is expanding is not decelerating but accelerating. Therefore, there will be no Big Crunch. 


Perhaps there are bubble universes instead, or Big Bangs within Big Bangs. Perhaps our universe exploded out of another universe, which exploded out of another universe in turn, and so on for infinity. However, we have no way of confirming the existence of these other universes, and one may just as well believe in God. 


2) The Incredible Fine Tuning of the Universe for Life


In recent decades, scientists have discovered that the physical parameters of the universe are finely tuned for life. For example, if the force of gravity were even slightly weaker, then there would be no molecules because everything would have spread apart after the Big Bang without coming together to form anything. But if the force of gravity were even slightly stronger, then life would still not be possible because everything would have become conflated. As it is, the force of gravity is finely tuned for life, and there are a number of other such parameters that demonstrate the same remarkable quality. 


In fact, the chances that the physical parameters of the universe would be finley tuned for life are even greater than the chances of selecting a single atom from all of the atoms in the universe by chance. To say that we just got lucky is not an adequate explanation. 


Perhaps a multiverse exists, and there are a near infinite number of alternate universes. Although the vast majority would not be finely tuned for life, we just happen to live in one that is.


However, if these alternate universes came into existence independley, then we are left with the same improbable chances that any one of them would be finely tuned for life. Therefore, there must be a "universe generating machine" that spits out alternate universes with differing physical parameters one after another. Eventually, it would have to spit out a universe where life is possible. 


We are now left with two expanations: Either God exists or a multiverse exists. Occam's razor says that we should accept whichever theory is the simplest. Although we cannot "see" God, much less can we see a near infinite number of alternate universes.


3) The Cambrian Explosion 


Darwin's theory postulated a gradual evolution from lower to more complex lifeforms, and he hoped that the fossil record would eventually prove him right. However, it has not. During the Cambrian explosion (approximately 541 million years ago), a large number of species suddenly appeared in the fossil record with no trace of their earlier incarnations. Perhaps their earlier incarnations were boneless?


Fast forward to the 1950's, and Watson and Crick became the first scientists to map the structure of DNA. (It was another Catholic priest, an Augustinian friar by the name of Gregor Mendel, who had become the father of genetics in the previous century).  


As it tuned out, the DNA present in all cells was infinitely more complicated than previously imagined. It was one thing to think that natural selection would cause one species to adapt to a new climate until its features changed accordingly. But it was another thing to imagine that the complex structure of a single cell, DNA and all, could fashion itself out of some primordial soup by chance. 


Perhaps the first cell was deposited on earth by aliens from distant galaxies? This theory is called "panspermia" and is taken seriously by some scientists who want to avoid the God hypothesis. But instead of answering the question of origins, it merely pushes the problem further back. How did the alien race originate?


Moreover, mutations alone do not explain the drastic differences that exist between species. Just as random changes would almost always ruin a computer program, causing it to crash, so too would random mutations almost always ruin a DNA sequence, resulting in nothing sustainable. Moreover, the age of the universe (13.9 billion years) would not allow for mutations alone to account for incredible diversity of life that exists in the world. There simply has not been enough time for that. 


Again, we are left with God as the best explanation. This is not a "God of the gaps," but an inference to the best explanation. If an explorer were to stumble upon ancient ruins and be dumbfounded, it would not be a "God of the gaps" fallacy to infer the existence of an ancient civilization, neverminding that the civilization was unknown. In the same way, when we stumble across the incredible fine tuning of the universe for life and the amazing complexities of DNA, we infer the existence of a creative mind because that is how we account for such improbable ordered complexity in everyday life. 

Vous avez donné votre avis sur cette évaluation.

Vous avez donné votre avis sur cette évaluation.

1 personne a trouvé cela utile

Well written, well explained and very thorough.

Natural sciences are not my strength at all, but this book is so well written that I was able to understand, at least, most of it! I think the other world views are fairly presented and well explained. I really enjoyed this book. I have the paper version and will read it again. Great work Dr Stephen C. Meyer!

Vous avez donné votre avis sur cette évaluation.

Vous avez donné votre avis sur cette évaluation.

1 personne a trouvé cela utile

Exceptional Book

Loved how science is explained for everyone to understand. The research behind the book is unparalleled!

Vous avez donné votre avis sur cette évaluation.

Vous avez donné votre avis sur cette évaluation.

Immensely Important Listen

Irrespective of your beliefs - or the lack thereof - this is a must read. Dr. Myers beautifully frames the strong and long known arguments for the existence of God within a purely scientific framework. Also, he brings to light the clear and glaring faults and contradictions within the purely materialistic view points dominating the scientific voice piece.

I've listened to this book and now plan or reading it, as well.

Vous avez donné votre avis sur cette évaluation.

Vous avez donné votre avis sur cette évaluation.

Wow! A revelation

Extraordinairy book for logical people looking for a solid reasoning backing the possibility of God. No certainty given in this book, but pretty close to it. The author articulates his thoughts very well and back them up with solid arguments and proofs. I never thought such a logical argumentation in favor of God’s existence could be done.

Vous avez donné votre avis sur cette évaluation.

Vous avez donné votre avis sur cette évaluation.