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

Product Information

In exploring the current state of origin-of-life research, Meyer shows that despite the best attempts of materialist scientists to re-create the first chemical steps toward life, they have been unable to do so, but in the process have inadvertently shown that an inordinate amount of intelligent design—far in excess of current human capability—is required to bring a living organism into existence. Indeed, by calling on experts in organic chemistry, Meyer shows that even the first steps toward creating a biomolecular assemblage require many intervening stages that cannot be achieved naturalistically. He writes:

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. This book presents a captivating overview of a range of scientific evidences that cumulatively point to the existence of a Creator, and a compelling refutation of the superficial objections of the New Atheists. A must-read for anyone interested in the Big Questions. Andrew T. Loke, PhD, King’s College London, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Hong Kong Baptist University, Author, God and Ultimate Origins Yet we would not say, for example, that an archaeologist had committed a ‘scribe-of-the-gaps’ fallacy simply because—after rejecting the hypothesis that an ancient hieroglyphic inscription was caused by a sandstorm—she went on to conclude that the inscription had been produced by an intelligent scribe. Instead, the archaeologist made an inference based upon her experience-based knowledge that information-rich inscriptions arise from intelligent causes. She did not base her inference solely on her judgment that no natural cause could explain the inscription [emphasis in original]” (pp. 416–417). Does RNA rescue the evolutionists? Stephen Meyer is a genuine renaissance person. His work tears down many purported barriers between science, philosophy, and religion. An important book of both breadth and depth. Dr. Henry F. Schaefer III, Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry, Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry, University of GeorgiaNote that this is subtly different from a probability argument. The argument is that it is the consistency of our experience regarding the origin of artificially encoded information that compels us to accept an intelligent origin of apparently naturally occurring encoded information. Proteins have distinctive folds, and it takes only a few mutations to destroy a protein fold, while many mutations are needed to transform one protein fold into another. This makes it virtually impossible for new protein folds to arise from evolutionary processes, as Meyer explains: No, I think it is the leaping to an unfalsifiable hypothesis before it is even remotely plausible that all testable hypothesis have been considered and discarded that makes it an argument from ignorance. 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. 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).

The problem with this is that the supernatural explanation he offers is unfalsifiable. What happens if, subsequent to that, another naturalistic explanation is presented that has not yet been falsified? Let’s now assume that some form of life did come to exist by chemical evolution. Things do not get any better for the evolutionist. In fact, some evolutionists have admitted as much, as observed by Meyer: Few public intellectuals can rival Stephen Meyer’s range and depth of scientific knowledge or, critically, his insight into the meaningof science. Return of the God Hypothesisreads like a detective story … beautiful and profound. Michael Egnor, M.D.; Professor and vice-Chairman for Research; Department of Neurological Surgery; Renaissance School of Medicine at Stony Brook University This is an intriguing statement since this is the very thing the scientists always try to do—seek to fill in a knowledge-gap without simply declaring it miraculous. As Christians we all agree that these are God’s processes, but Meyer thinks he has shown that the knowledge-gap related to the origin of the universe, life, and complex body forms require supernatural activity. This could conceivably be the case for one or all of these phenomena, but the problem with his conclusion (at least in biology), is that he has not accurately described the state of the science. It has progressed much further than he seems to realize, and it is most certainly too early to declare that the biology gaps cannot be explained through natural mechanisms and the best thing to do is to plug the miraculous activity of God into the gap. 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 author

Archives

Some evolutionists have downplayed the role of new genes in the putative formation of new animal body plans and have instead focused on the supposed power of ‘rewired’ dGRNs in this role. This is especially claimed for the sudden appearance of novel animals during the Cambrian explosion.

Meyer’s book is a masterclass… John C. Walton Ph.D., Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh About the BookYet all available observational evidence shows that dGRNs do not tolerate changes or perturbations to their basic control systems … . Even modest mutation-induced changes to the genes in the core of the dGRN produce either no change in the developmental trajectory (due to a preprogrammed redundancy) or catastrophic (most often lethal) effects within developing animals. Disrupt the central control nodes and the developing animal does not shift to a different viable, stably heritable body plan. Rather, the system crashes, and the developing animal dies or, if it survives, is severely malformed” (p. 314). The problem with this is that the supernatural explanation he offers is unfalsifiable. What happens if, subsequent to that, another naturalistic explanation is presented that has not yet been falsified? We now have two unfalsified explanations — one of which is, by its nature, unfalsifiable. Nothing can displace the inherently unfalsifiable explanation, whereas the other will always be, in principle, at risk of falsification: it will never be able to achieve the status of the unfalsifiable proposition.

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.

A meticulously researched, lavishly illustrated, and thoroughly argued case against the new atheism. Even if your mind is made up — especially if it is — Meyer’s refreshing take on humanity’s most unbridgeable divide—between secular and divine accounts of origins of the Universe—is a joy to read. You may not come away convinced, but you’ll be richer for the journey. Dr. Brian Keating, Chancellor’s Distinguished Professor of Physics, University of California, San Diego. Author, Losing the Nobel Prize: A Story of Cosmology, Ambition, and the Perils of Science’s Highest Honor. I’m not going to play word games with SA, but I’m going to make a comment about arguments from ignorance, and why what Meyer is doing should be considered an example of such an argument.