I Am Currently Reading...

…The Return of the God Hypothesis: Compelling Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God by Stephen C. Meyer, in which he demonstrates – conclusively, in my opinion – that Judeo-Christian theism is the only explanation that fits the mathematical and astrophysical facts of the universe, especially the fact that the universe was fine-tuned for life (the anthropic principle) from the moment of the Big Bang. The book is more than six hundred pages in length (Kindle), not counting the bibliography, and it’s heavy on physics (which it must be for Meyer to make his case), but if you’re willing to read patiently and go back frequently to re-read, it’s well worth it, especially for those who occasionally find themselves in conversation with folks who think Stephen Hawking is unchallengeable.

Meyer’s credentials are impeccable. He earned a Ph.D. in philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge and is a former geophysicist and college professor. Meyer currently directs Discovery Institute’s (Seattle) Center for Science and Culture. His previous books – which yours truly has read and highly recommends – include Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Case for Intelligent Design (HarperOne, 2009) and Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design (HarperOne, 2013). The former was named a 2009 Book of the Year by the Times (of London) Literary Supplement.

Briefly, Meyer proves beyond a shadow of doubt that atheistic hypotheses concerning the origin of the universe, the origin of life on Earth, the so-called Cambrian Explosion, and the fine-tuning of the universe simply don’t cut the proverbial mustard. As one reviewer has elegantly put it: “Leaving no materialist, reductionist or determinist stone unturned and unrefuted, Return of the God Hypothesis exposes atheistic materialism as a modern superstition. Meyer reveals atheism as a feckless faith that resorts to ever more preposterous hypotheses — from an infinitude of multiple parallel universes, infinite expanses of missing matter, imaginary time, and other far-fetched canards — all to conceal the academic emperor’s intellectual nudity, vanity, and obesity ....”

I fail to understand why many prominent Christian pundits refuse to give dispassionate consideration to the facts that support both Big Bang theory and the old-earth hypothesis. The folks in question – sincere, all – seem to think that these evidence-based propositions contradict the Genesis 1 creation account, when they do not. Genesis 1:3 – “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light” – describes the Big Bang, and the next verse – “God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness” – describes the separation of dark matter/energy from light matter/energy, which science confirms as occurring in the first second of the Bang. (Given that the sun and moon were not created until “day” 4, the words “night” and “day” in verse 5 simply cannot be referring to nighttime and daytime as we use the terms.)

The Bible tells us that God spoke the universe into existence. To speak is to convey information, and as Meyer points out, information is the essence of all creation. The math and physics of the universe consist of information and DNA, the basis of life, is information. The long and short of it is that science and the Bible do not contradict one another – quite the opposite. The more scientists discover, the more absurd their atheistic theories become, and the more the Bible’s absolute truth is revealed.

I do not read many books twice, but Return of the God Hypothesis will definitely receive the distinction.