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

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

1. 

   Nick – Novembre 4, 2024

   pessimo
   incomprensibile

2. 

   Amanuel – Novembre 4, 2024

   This is one of the Best books that shows how science points to a creator
   Amazing book!

3. 

   Amazon Customer – Novembre 4, 2024

   Dr. Meyer doesn’t attempt to prove God with deductive certainty. Rather he shows that an intelligent mind is the best explanation for the fine tuning of the universe and the origin of biological information. His history of the relevant historical data and origin of the scientific method are thorough. You will learn things about Newton and Darwin that are skipped in modern retelling of the progress of science. Don’t think this book is another version of Ken Hams as as hoc creationism. This book is a good companion to reading other books like the Devils Delusion, Aquinas’s proofs for God, or books on the history of science. Now that we know the universe had a beginning, the Kalaam cosmological argument is looking very solid. The argument proposed is intellectually serious and deeply important.

4. 

   Carmel Paul Attard BSc – Novembre 4, 2024

   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.

5. 

   Uriel – Novembre 4, 2024

   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.

6. 

   Thiago – Novembre 4, 2024

   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.

7. 

   Sunil A. – Novembre 4, 2024

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