Meyer is author of “The Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe.” Eric Metaxas is a radio talk show host and author of Is Atheism Dead?
A great deal has been invested in not understanding something as simple and obvious as the design inference. That’s powerful evidence that it is an important insight.
“Yet those who propose panspermia have not explained, or even seriously grappled with, the problem of the origin of specified biological information.” – Meyer No, but they don’t need to, do they? Their seamless blend of science fiction and non-fiction would be rudely interrupted by needless complexities in the plot…
Meyer on multiverse cosmologists: “The speculative cosmologies (such as inflationary cosmology and string theory) they propose for generating alternative universes invariably invoke mechanisms that themselves require fine-tuning, thus begging the question as to the origin of that prior fine-tuning.”
So Larry Krauss argues “cosmological fine-tuning does not provide evidence of intelligent design, but instead, ‘the illusion of intelligent design.’” Isn’t that a misuse of the concept of illusion? Doesn’t it amount to saying, Who Ya Gonna Believe Me or Your Own Eyes?
They couldn’t have written them without intelligent design of the universe. The blog also notes the impact of Steve Meyer’s book, Return of the God Hypothesis, which seems to be giving the Darwinian materialist atheists some serious competition.
The interesting thing is that the blind, pitiless indifference thing isn’t selling as well as it used to.
The Tree of Life is how artsies came to embrace Darwinism. True, false, or indifferent, it practically illustrates itself. Good myths work that way. A problem arises when we are commanded by authorities to believe them.
Note: Re Theology Unleashed as a Hindu site. Lots of people are now finding a voice to question materialism, naturalism, physicalism, and Darwinism.
Reviewer: Meyer argues that the materialist assumption now poses an obstruction to understanding, compelling scientists to embrace implausible and untestable hypotheses as a defense against the God hypothesis… But Gelernter and Nagel make a good case that religious zealotry, and a refusal to debate the facts honestly, now characterize Meyer’s opponents more than they do Meyer and his supporters.
Even Ockham’s Razor can’t mow down an infinite expanse of nonsense. Steve Meyer, author of The Return of the God Hypothesis, offers a summary of the problems.
Now that Miller mentions it, several other anti-Big Bang tales have appeared recently. Perhaps the reason that all these stories seem extra-silly is that the authors are rattled.
Casey Luskin looks at the controversy, in part based on time he has spent in Africa, working on South African fossils.
If so, fashionable atheists must all just want to kill Meyer for busting up a sweet faith-and-science racket. Whatever any establishment figure with a PhD in science wants to call science is science and obedient religion profs just bumble along, glad to be noticed. Actually, with all the stuff we have discovered that does not confirm just what everyone thinks, it’s a pretty decrepit racket now.
Jordan, if you believe Meyer is right or even partways right or is making a good case, stand your ground. You have already faced some of the most incomprehensibly vicious mobs that Cancel Culture has spewed and you are still standing. Follow the evidence, not the crybullies. You, of all people, can afford to and it would do immense good.