5.0 out of 5 stars Is Theism compatible with Science?

E.G. · 26 October 2024

(function() { P.when('cr-A', 'ready').execute(function(A) { if(typeof A.toggleExpanderAriaLabel === 'function') { A.toggleExpanderAriaLabel('review_text_read_more', 'Read more of this review', 'Read less of this review'); } }); })(); .review-text-read-more-expander:focus-visible { outline: 2px solid #2162a1; outline-offset: 2px; border-radius: 5px; } In this book, Stephen Meyer holds the view that theism and science are actually best buddies; they complement one another. Meyer argues why intelligent design (God) is the only solution to several key questions in science. He reminds us that Isaac Newton [and no doubt Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei] agreed with him.

Most scientists, especially physicists, are skilled in advanced mathematics and assume this makes them good philosophers and logicians. Clearly it doesn't and it takes a philosopher like Meyer to critique their thinking.

Mathematics is a precise language for manipulating abstract concepts. Scientists use it to describe the natural world, but they sometimes forget that mathematics has no causative powers. Like a figurative work of art, mathematicians “imagine” the natural world through mathematical modelling. This model becomes science only when scientists find some evidence to connect it with physical reality.Meyer highlights some evidence-free claims by several physicists and biologists - however he fails to include his own evidence-free claim for the existence of God; a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Next, Meyer turns to more fundamental issues: how do you get something from nothing? Not even a philosopher can answer that question - although Meyer points out the contradictions when some physicists (namely Lawrence Krauss) misleadingly claim to have done so, or when physicists try to ignore the issue altogether, as is found in the steady state/multiverse/vacuum energy theories.

Meyer goes on to consider scientific attempts to explain how atoms combined to form protein molecules, which eventually gave rise to living creatures, when the probabilities of doing so by chance are infinitesimally small. Clearly it DID happen, yet no scientist has demonstrated experimentally how it happened in pre-biotic conditions on the Earth.

For many in the West, “Science” is the new religion. Science has replaced “God” in the modern age, with scientists as its “bishops”, teachers as its “priests” and the rest of us its “disciples”, naively following the diktats of Science, faithfully reading its books and magazines, while gullibly watching sometimes evidence-free “sermons” on TV and YT [YouTube] by the bishops of Science.Scientists tell us that traditional religions are the cause of all the trouble in the world. We’re told religions are all out-of-date and out-of-touch with the scientific world and modern society. How quickly they forgot that Hitler and Communism performed evil deeds without appealing to religion. Indeed, most wars in history were unaffected by religion.It’s my own belief that religions were developed by humans not only to explain the world around us but also to enable us to reflect on how our individual actions impact our family, our community and the wider world.Too easily we forget that traditional religions answer questions that science cannot ever answer. Religions appeal to our personal (i.e. spiritual) needs, challenging us to lead a “good” life. Religions question and monitor our own behaviour and set standards for us to follow. Science is dumb and blind to these issues. Every person alive today has to comprehend their own unique state of mind, their own personal issues, as well as staying physically secure. Science has nothing to say about these invisible, personal needs; it only talks about observable phenomena. 

I have yet to see a paper in the journal Nature explaining the mind of Edward Grabczewski (or anyone else for that matter) and how he should lead his life.Meyer goes on to discuss several philosophical topics regarding knowledge and the difference between science and naturalism, leading to some important insights.

His book addresses several issues with impressive clarity - however anthropomorphism creeps into his arguments.

Darwin and Wallace proposed that life evolves through variation and "natural selection", suggesting that Nature is capable of “selecting” a species. Ordinary “selection” implies intention (conscious or otherwise) by an intelligent agent, whereas "natural selection" does not (unless Nature is your god).

Similarly the word "information" implies intention, whereas “data” does not. Meyer prefers the word "information" over "data" to describe the first ever DNA sequence, inferring that an intelligent agent initially arranged the sequence of nucleotides in the first DNA strands. He believes this to be true primarily because the probability of it happening “naturally” is unbelievably small.

Meyer accepts that "natural selection” is possible, but NOT that a natural DNA sequence is possible. He accepts that a species can be "naturally selected" without the intervention of an intelligent agent, but NOT that the “data” in a DNA sequence could be organised naturally.

Is it really so impossible to conceive a DNA sequence forming naturally? Perhaps the problem is that he believes an over-simplified, probabilistic calculation by an uninformed mathematician. Maybe we should all wait for an inspired scientist to demonstrate how it might have really happened. Why does Meyer have more faith in mathematicians than in scientists?

If it's true that intelligence creates information (otherwise it's just data) then it follows that intelligence is required to interpret or "understand" that data (otherwise it's not information).

Ribosomes interpret RNA to produce proteins. Is a ribosome "intelligent" because it "understands" the data in a RNA strand? Is a Jacquard loom intelligent because it “understands” punched cards? Is a computer processor intelligent because it “understands” a computer program? Clearly a ribosome, Jacquard loom and computer processor are types of machine. Clearly these machines “understand” information is some sense. If a machine can “understand” information then can a machine create information? If it can then is it “intelligent”?A ribosome processes amino acids under the instruction of nucleic acid. A Jacquard loom processes textile fibre under the instruction of punched cards. A computer processor processes data under the instruction of data. Hence a computer processor is unique in that its instructions and throughput comprise the same material, namely “data”. This allows for data feedback, so the output can potentially become an instruction – given the right architecture. (Feedback is how pressure valves and thermostats work.)The brain is similar in that it has electrochemical signals as input, electrochemical signals as output, and a network architecture that allows for electrochemical feedback. This feedback allows the machine to control itself, independently of any external instruction. Is “deciding for yourself”, or self-determination, a feature of intelligence? Can a machine be self-determining and therefore intelligent? (Are pressure valves and thermostats in some sense intelligent?) Has Nature created self-determining, intelligent machines? Is “Nature” another name for God? Are “Natural philosophers” actually priests?Currently, “Generative AI” is like a ribosome or a Jacquard loom: it processes and stores a lot of old data, transforming it on demand. This is characteristic of a machine. In the future, when feedback loops are introduced into AI networks, then we might see the first inklings of self-instruction, leading to some kind of artificial “intelligence”. And to be current, it will need fresh data input (through its “senses”).
There are many unanswered questions in science. Faith in scientists will be necessary to believe that science will eventually solve some of our current problems. Unfortunately some problems are beyond science.I believe people will always have a need for that most revered anthropomorphism – God. They need to be comforted and believe there is SOME hope in this hostile world. For them, help will always be found in God. 
Fanaticism is a human condition and many forms of fanaticism, whether scientific or religious, end in human suffering. Believers of science and of religion need to understand the limitations of what they can know. Scientists must understand themselves before they can be objective, however science tells us nothing about ourselves. Theists need to understand themselves before they can know God, however they confuse their own desires for those of God.
In my own case, my former Catholic upbringing never progressed beyond the age of 14, largely because of the incredible stories I was told about “God”. For those who are searching for a better understanding of God, I can recommend two approaches, based on my own experience:

1) Read the book “God in Us” by Anthony Freeman. This priest focuses on why the CONCEPT of God is an important one for humans, even though it's a very human God.

2) Read Meyer’s book (“Return of the God Hypothesis”). It dispels several misconceptions by scientists and argues in favour of an “intelligent being” - in Meyer's view, a supernatural God.

If nothing else, these books will widen your understanding and help you to be more critical of scientific claims, and possibly reconsider your current beliefs.

5.0 out of 5 stars A great read!

d. · 11 June 2025

Fantastic read, thoroughly well researched and informative!

5.0 out of 5 stars Latest scientific evidence debunks Darwin

P.R. · 7 February 2025

As a biology graduate it is fascinating to observe that just about every scientific discovery over the last 50 years has diminished Darwin’s Theory of Evolution to extinction! Amongst other discoveries, this book demonstrates beyond all doubt that mutation and natural selection cannot possibly explain the diversity of life on earth occurring by random chance. Rigorous science is increasingly becoming the best friend of people of Faith. How the tables have turned in less than half a Century!

5.0 out of 5 stars Logical, empirical and scientific. Read this .

J.v. · 27 October 2021

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 !

5.0 out of 5 stars Wow

C.B. · 18 December 2024

A fulsome, deep dive into the most important mysteries and questions of our existence. As I'm no scientist I'll have to read again (and again!) to really get my head around some of the points the author makes but a very readable and convincing argument that covers all sides. Stephen Meyer is great.

Outstanding Book

M. · 19 March 2025

(function() { P.when('cr-A', 'ready').execute(function(A) { if(typeof A.toggleExpanderAriaLabel === 'function') { A.toggleExpanderAriaLabel('review_text_read_more', 'Read more of this review', 'Read less of this review'); } }); })(); .review-text-read-more-expander:focus-visible { outline: 2px solid #2162a1; outline-offset: 2px; border-radius: 5px; } Excellent. As a lay man in philosophy (although, I have a pretty good background in science), I understood everything from this book and its arguments. Simply put, this book destroys atheism from the scientific point of view. It shows how ludicrous one must be to believe in a universe created from nothing, and yet, we call these people rational! Oddly enough, you will seem more rational believing in an intelligent designer than believing that nothing created you (which is impossible!).

Intelligent designer must exist

S.A. · 15 September 2024

It is a huge and comprhensive study...a synopsis of all that is said and written would be most welcome.

Every skeptic should read this.

t.j.l. · 7 August 2021

This is one of the best works I've read on whether the belief in God is supported by reason and evidence. It deals with alternative views fairly and with considerable detail while presenting a very well researched case for belief as a most reasonable conclusion.Those who dismiss the concept of God can not read this book and honestly say that there is insufficient reasons to believe. Every objection raised by atheists is answered scientifically.

Dr Meyer ups the ante in his newest contribution to the science of origins

S.W. · 12 April 2021

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.

Aleluia!

T. · 11 October 2022

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.