Book Description
Modern science has uncovered a design that is surprisingly compatible with the biblical account of creation. Learn how scientific discoveries reveal the nature of God.
Customer Reviews:
another awesome one from Dr. Ross.......2007-10-05
My only complaint is that it's a wee bit technical for the lay reader...but fabulous none-the-less... this is the 4th Hugh Ross book i own and even though i don't understand all the nuances of redshift velocities and special relativity, I thoroughly enjoy his apologetics.
Anyone interested in God and discovering truth should check out Dr. Ross' organization at www.reasons.org
Desperate pleading.......2007-09-19
Ross claims science has revealed the truth of God and the Bible, but his book doesn't read that way. Ross does a fair job of exposing people to the wonders of an esoteric branch of physics but never is he able to show science reveals God. He ends up doing the only thing such endeavors allow - simply saying so. His support? A mass of scientific reference that he hopes - through association - will give religion the cache of scientific credibility. His goal is to give faith, which requires no evidence, evidence. Revealing that long-standing insecurity about faith in the face of science since the Enlightenment.
From the outset Ross establishes the usual illogical arguments, "... if the universe is not created [by a creator]... it has no objective meaning... consequently human life has no meaning". Why? Imagine the billions of humans to come and go before Christianity [Ross's only allowed option] or today who follow something else - they've had no meaning. Even atheists have meaning. "The Creator's character defines morality," says Ross. Recall this is the creator that kills all first born of Egypt - innocent boys, girls, toddlers, infants, to "harden Pharaoh's heart". Morality? "If it [the universe] had a beginning, it must have had a Beginner." Why? Recall, humans used to credit God with wind, rain and the solar eclipse, while Ross pushes divine cause back to the more nebulous and safer (for now) Big Bang itself. Each of these "pronouncements" may satisfy perspectives derived from human experience, needs or desires, but we're only 5 pages into the book and with profuse clarity Ross has violated the most fundamental practice of scientists, which Ross claims to be. He has woven his underlying assumptions into what to some may sound like obvious conclusions, though none of it is falsifiable, not even reasonably connected nor logically credible.
Ross, in the stock story of hard skeptic (at age 15), finds through his analysis of the Bible not a single inconsistency nor contradiction. Ross never read Thomas Paine's, Age Of Reason. He argues that historical references support the Bible. But what good novel does not insert factual historical reference? Doing so doesn't make the novel a true story. For Ross other religions are vague, but parables are obvious. And again, as so often, probability arguments are employed to blind the ignorant, with nothing whatsoever to do with anything other than finding other avenues through which to hoodwink statistical novices. Ross makes mileage over hyperbolic remarks from scientists, historians and newsmen to dramatize their discovery or sell papers, all making positive reference to God. And so what? Like a witness, these carry weight for Ross. But while witnesses count for something in religion and a court of law, they count for nothing in science. If they did, science would declare abundant proof of particularly congenial aliens zipping about earth in their UFOs. Revisionist tellings of the Bible are everywhere. "...so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." (Hebrews 11:3). Ross then revises this, "Hebrews 11:3 states that the universe we can detect was made through that which we cannot possibly detect." But Ross (as a scientist) should know the visible range is but a tiny sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum, from radio to gamma rays, none of them visible but quite detectable. Ross then goes a step further to suit his cosmological connection: The universe "came from a source independent of matter, energy, length, height, and time." But that that's not what Hebrews said. The long worn question of literal or figurative interpretation arises and what gives Ross this insight into what God really meant?
As Ross describes recent (though outdated) cosmological progress to laymen, he ties scientific results separate from religion to religion usually capping each chapter with a reminder. Astronomers have verified the Big Bang "concluding God is the power and intelligence behind it all." Yes, and, almost never. But, so what if they did? Would a scientist claiming God does not exist, prove it by saying so? Then why does a scientist's claim that God does exist matter? This repetitious reminder that what we're doing here is providing evidence for God rings of theological pleadings at the funeral, trying to assuage our grief with mock authority that our loved ones really, absolutely, truly, "trust me", still live and so will we.
For all of Ross's apparent good intensions (hopefully he's not simply cashing in on religious readers), faith does not require the sanction of science. Trying to force science into granting such approval is not only an embarrassing failure but reduces the importance of faith residing in a wholly different arena however Ross and others may wish otherwise.
This is an excellent book on Old-Earth Creationism.......2006-12-23
In the world today there are basically three views regarding creation:
1. On the one extreme is the view that there is no God, and that the world was created by natural causes. In this view, science holds the only answers. We must use our inquiring minds to learn the truth, and there is a constant search for better answers.
2. At the other extreme is the Young Earth Creations (YEC). They believe that all scriptures must be interpreted literally, and any science that contradicts a literal interpretation must be wrong, and they therefore dismiss all of science as incorrect, and attempt to define an alternative science where the speed of light changes.
3. There is the middle ground between these two. Proponents, such as Ross, take the view that the Bible is true, but that being men, our knowledge is never complete, and that therefore, while the Bible is never wrong, we must occasionally be flexible in changing our understanding of it. These people believe that God does not lie, and that therefore as we use science to learn about his creation, what we find will also be true, and consistent with his word. Therefore they attempt to reconcile science and the Bible, finding common ground in an old-earth creation (OEC) interpretation.
Typically YEC do not get along with either group, viewing both as the enemy. According to their view, you are forced to choose to accept the Bible according to their entirely literal reading, or you must reject the Bible entirely. Faced with this choice many thinking people are driven away from Christianity, or at least are forced to deal with cognitive dissonance - On Sunday the Bible is true and science is ignored, but the rest of the week science is true and the Bible is to be ignored.
By contrast there is typically more constructive dialogue and respect between the scientists and the OEC group. In the world today, most people believe that science is true. OEC provides an interpretation of the Bible that rconciles Science and the Bible. In my personal experience, when I attempt to evalgelize people with any level of scientific sophistication, they immediately prepare to attack and ridicule the YEC view. When I take the OEC perspective, they are always quite surprised to hear that the biblical account written 3000 years ago is consistent with science not discovered until recently. As a result, this book by Ross is an outstanding evangelical tool - it permits thinking people to be reached who reject YEC out of hand. This approach doesn't necessarily convert them, because in most cases their disrespect for YEC has led them to a hard-core atheistic view, but it does eliminate the major obstacle to their ultimate acceptance of the Bible.
Basically, in evaluting this book, you have to ask - does this book lay out its view is a clear, convincing way. The answer is that it does. I'm not here to attack or defend one of the views above, but I can tell you that as a scientist, I am delighted to read books like this which help to clarify that the Bible is consistent with Science. I can tell you that this book has reinforced my Christian beliefs, and that it has also been a powerful evangelical tool. I highly recommend it.
A serious, straightfoward approach to the logical implications of Big Bang cosmology .......2006-02-20
Hugh Ross takes the reader on an exciting tour de force of the most recent discoveries in astronomy and enlightens the reader on the logical implications of these discoveries. This book devestates the too often repeated canard that science and religion are (as the late Stephen Gould termed) "non-overlapping magesteria." A must read for anyone who is asking themselves the deepest questions a human can ask: "Why am I here? and Where did I come from?"
Very interesting.......2006-02-10
I recommend this as a must-read book to just about everyone. Not because I agree with everything Ross says (because I don't) but because it opens up a completely new and refreshing perspective on the whole cosmology, religion, and the meaning of the universe topic. I especially liked the part describing just what conditions must be met for human life to develop in the universe.
His arguments are quite reaching in many places, but that does not disqualify his valid points, of which there are many, and it is worth it to the reader to hear them in a society increasingly being indoctrinated by a secular, politically correct elite.
Very interesting book.
Book Description
Is there any connection between the vastness of the universes of stars and galaxies and the existence of life on a small planet out in the suburbs of the Milky Way? This book shows that there is. In their classic work, John Barrow and Frank Tipler examine the question of Mankind's place in the Universe, taking the reader on a tour of many scientific disciplines and offering fascinating insights into issues such as the nature of life, the serach for extraterrestrial intelligence, and the past history and fate of our universe.
Customer Reviews:
700 Page Paperback.......2006-08-19
Originally published in late 1980s this book discusses what has come to be known as the `anthropic principle'. Barrow and Tippler are physicists and popular science writers.
This anthropic principle has been variously understood, but, in a general sense, it pertains to the relationship between the characteristics of the universe and our existence within the universe - i.e. the universe seems remarkably tuned for human life. A strong formulation of this principle would argue along the lines of "the universe was intended/designed for our type of life". While a weaker formulation would take the tact that these qualities are required in order to produce observers such as ourselves. I applaud the author's ambition in tackling this issue. They make a laudable effort to be comprehensive and attempt to cover the pertinent historic, philosophical and scientific ground.
Unfortunately, the book is too broad, as a result, at times it devolves into a litany of disparate quotes and facts that leaves the reader thinking; so what? Someone looking to get the gist of the types of questions addressed in this text is better looking at on-line sources such as Wikipedia (it has limits, but is a better entry point). I wonder who is the intended audience for this text? Anyone capable of following the discussion will likely find it superficial. While someone new to this area might find it impenetrable. Additionally, it is a 700-page pocketbook - the quotes are vanishingly small!
Despite the limitations of this book, the authors deserve some credit for their pioneering effort. I would, however, not recommend it. There is a tremendous range of outstanding popular works on the market that cover similar ground much more effectively - Greene, Ferris are especially good for the science aspects.
Modern cosmology........2005-09-08
A great book about the modern scientific theories on the origin and functioning of the universe.
NOT a Layman's guide to the Anthropic Cosmological Principle.......2005-08-03
Although this is a very extensive book, covering the Anthropic Cosmological Principle (which in short focuses on the fact that so many aspects of the cosmos and nature are finely tuned to make life possible) in a historical perspective, within cosmology, quantum theory, chemistry and biology, it is definitely not a book for the Layman. It includes a lot of mathematics, which I think should have been included in the references at the end of each chapter. However, when you filter those passages out, and focus on the main points, this book is a must-have and a classic for everyone with an open mind and interest in our place in this universe.
Rob (The Netherlands)
What principle?.......2005-06-04
Barrow is the chief advocate of the so-called "anthropic cosmological principle," which he treats in some detail in this book. There are two basic objections to this notion.
First, if chaotic inflation is correct then there should be an infinite number of universes out there, past, present and future, taking all possible physical constants. In this case, there should be no wonder that a certain percentage of these universes should happen to take fundamental constants (such as the ratio of the strength of the gravitational force versus that of the electromagnetic force) that are favorable to life. The law of large numbers means that it would be strange if NO universes should have life. A percentage of life-supporting or even life-suffusing universes would be infinite if the number of "baby" or "bubble" universes out there is indeed infinite. If a large enough number of people buy the Powerball lottery, then some people are bound to win sooner or later, no matter how small the odds. Feeling that life is special because the physical constants in our universe require "fine tuning" would be like saying that if you are the Powerball winner, that's because the lottery was designed for you and you only. And that's absurd. The jackpot is given to whoever has the winning ticket, and not just you. And more importantly, the lottery was never designed with giving away prizes as its primary goal - it was designed to bring in revenue. Winners are just an inevitable side-effect of the whole scheme. If you win, you're merely lucky. But there is nothing special about you. Of course, a lottery must have winners or else the lottery would not work. The difference between lotteries and nature is that there is no reason to suppose that life is necessary in order for universes to exist.
We can all feel life is special for other reasons, but one should not argue that this is because nature is the way it is in order that life exists without also asking why it doesn't exist in SO MANY other places. And even if our universe is the only possible one (such a view is no longer acceptable), it is still a matter of debate among physicists as to whether fine tuning actually occurred.
The other objection is that this so-called "principle" is really just an interpretation, and is in no way a scientific principle comparable to the laws of mechanics or natural selection. Sir Martin Rees says "anthropic reasoning" would be more appropriate. It does not command general consent among scientists, and is thus more like a philosophical school of thought than a genuine scientific principle. To elevate anthropic ideas to the status of "principles" is exaggerated and misleading.
In my view, scientists like Barrow who win the Templeton Prize are disqualified thereby, somewhat like athletes who test positive for banned drugs. I'm not suggesting that scientists cannot have religious beliefs (and I was surprised to know that Andre Linde, a founder of chaotic inflation, also does). I only insist that scientific research should not be misused for religious purposes. Barrow can perhaps point to distinguished scientists like Freeman Dyson and John Wheeler for sympathy with his views. But I think this only shows that even distinguished scientists can be in serious error. Nobel Laureate in Physics Steven Weinberg, who thinks more clearly about these matters than most, finds that the Weak Anthropic Principle is nothing more than "mystical mumbo jumbo" (because it's just common sense to say that if the physical constants had been any different we would not have existed), and that the Strong Anthropic Principle is unbelievable because our universe is probably not the only one.
The main virtue of this book is the breadth of its coverage and the range of subjects discussed. Its erudition is broad rather than deep.
He's got the whole world... upside down! .......2005-04-13
Dear Frank Tipler. In case you don't know, it was God who created the Universe, and not the other way around.
He is the Alpha and Omega points. He is not a creation of nature. He is the Creator of nature. Nature is the Beta point. Are you intelligent and wise enough to get that?
Once you understand this simple truth, everything will start to fit in and feel right, and it will help a lot to clear up your helplessly confused and senseless thoughts and speculations. Right now you have it upside down. You have to change your assumptions and renew your mind, as the Apostle Paul has put it.
You see, once your starting assumptions are wrong, the brighter you are the worse is the trouble your reasoning gets you in.
By the way, the thousands of anthropic coincidences that can be found in the macro and micro spheres of the Universe are exactly what biblical creationism would predict.
Book Description
The God Hypothesis seeks to reverse the profound misunderstanding that science has disproved the existence of God. Drawing on the fairy tale of Goldilocks and The Three Bears, Michael A. Corey believes that the just right conditions that created life on earth provide overwhelming evidence of an Intelligent Designer at work.
Customer Reviews:
Evolution is Anti-knowlege - Self Organization is non causual reasoning - Big Bang, a mathematic singularity.......2007-08-28
1. Collin Patterson said, "Last year I had a sudden realization. For over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night; and it struck me that I had be working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing that I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long...Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing... that is true? All I got was silence." The doctrine of evolution is anti-knowledge meaning it does not convey knowledge. Evolution is a false faith endorsed by academia and sponsored by strong political and economic pressure to accept. Evolution does not create beauty, harmony, nor cooperative systems and at best natural selection yields unstable, chaotic, and competitive networks. The idea of gradual change over billions of years producing a tree of life can not be proven. Evolution proof is impossible because it has no reversible pattern or algorithm. Evolution is the product of "Self-sufficient" thinkers who ignore any role that God had in the creation. Evolution is the ultimate excuse to ignore God. Preachers of evolution argue, "our behavioral freedom would necessarily be short-circuited by our direct perception of God's Great glory, and this something that is generally deemed to be incompatible with our existence as free-will beings." We are agents of a Divine God and God's creations are designed for beauty and the benefit of man. "The whole idea here is to infuse some much needed ambiguity into the creation, so that human freedom can be preserved as a result." The universe is far more surprising that any one could ever image. God is central and important part of explaining cosmological and biological theories.
2. "We also know that the finite property of self-organization couldn't possibly have been responsible for its own origin, because there was a definite point in the past before it ever existed." Self-organization would need a reason or explaining power for existence, causal or otherwise, other than itself. The only way out of the bind is to suggest that self-organization is "eternal in nature". The phenomenon of self-organization is not eternal in nature.
3. Fundamental laws and constants of nature do not gradually evolve into their present life-supporting character. Natural selection and Darwinism fail.
4. "Where did the universe get this seemingly self-sufficient character to begin with?" Jesus Christ is the power by which the Universe is powered and remains in order. Accepting this fact brings certainty and faith in the purpose of man. We don't need to fear cosmological destruction by random events.
5. The Universe is expanding or inflating, at approximately 4 millions per hour. The Universe is not expanding at a constant rate suggested by Einstein's cosmological constant. Einstein called the cosmological constant a mistake. Einstein believed in "Spinoza God," and impersonal Deity who only revealed himself in the orderly workings of nature. "In Einstein's mind, such an impersonal Creator could conceivable have allow these worldly evils to happen, either because he wouldn't have known about them, or else because he wouldn't have cared about them." Einstein was reluctant to accept the big bang bringing him to the acceptance of a personal creator. The second law of thermodynamics says that the total amount of disorder in the universe can never decrease. A winding down suggest their must have been a winding up. George Gamow big bang calculations predicted 25 percent of the matter in the universe will be helium and the other 75 percent, hydrogen. Penrose and Hawkings proof of the big bang was found in the peculiar properties of black holes. "Sufficiently dense stars that exceeds the Chandrasekhar limit, the inward pull of gravity will eventually be able to overwhelm the outward push by the Pauli Exclusion Principle (force to accelerating a particle to the speed of light), with the result that the star will begin a calamitous period of runaway contraction." The singularity is a state of zero size and infinity density.
6. The amount of matter produced by the big bang is exact. Any more matter and gravitational contraction would occur and not enough and galaxies would not form. The cosmic initial conditions are very fine tuned to support life. A veil of mystery will always prevent science from understanding the initial condition. At 10 minus 43 power seconds, Planks Wall is the temperature point where temperatures are so high that the four fundamental forces of physics dissolve. Limitations include limits to human intellect, measuring apparatus, and the intrinsic uncertainty of quantum reality.
7. The notion of oscillating universes that move back and forth between contraction and expansion are not feasible. The universe is expanding with not force strong enough to cause contraction, the universe will not collapse because there isn't enough matter to cause the collapse. Each cycle of expansion and contraction in an oscillating universe must produce an increase in cosmic disorder, or entropy. The increase in entropy would reveal itself in an increase of photons and nuclear particles. The universe does not seem to be the product of an infinite number of cycles. There is no known physical mechanism that is capable of reversing a cosmic contraction.
Oops. (Reckless, but slightly better than 2 stars).......2007-06-27
At about the same time I received this book, I read a similarly titled book whose thesis is the exact counter-argument to Corey's; that volume being "God: the Failed Hypothesis," by Victor Stenger. Both books are --intensely-- flawed. Stenger presents an easily rebutted collection of arguments that he claims to be 'science' putting God to the gallows once and for all. By his own modest admission, Stenger's interpretations of certain physical theories depart substantially from the understandings of most physicists, and many of Stenger's offbeat "interpretations" are simply silly. Unfortunately, the present volume, "The God Hypothesis," by Michael Corey, is argued almost as badly.
Corey does present enough 'expert testimony' to make the case that "our 'just right' goldilocks universe" is outrageously unlikely, impossible by any reasonable standard, unless it has been intended by a Super-intellect having some conceptual 'likeness' to Anaxagoras' 'primordial Mind' and Aristotle's 'First Mover'. Support is cited from the recent work of many well-known physicists: Gribben, Davies, Hawking, Penrose, Rees, Barrow, Gingerich, Dyson, Jastrow, Smoot, and many more, as well as many biologists. If Corey had been a great deal more cautious in his interpretations and comments regarding the citations he makes, the book could have been both shorter and more powerfully argued. But when Corey throws his own 'scientific' understandings into the mix, he often succeeds only in muddling the topic at hand. Corey's defective spin on physical theory will have informed readers (perhaps especially those who might otherwise be inclined to agree with his thesis) gritting their teeth and wincing. Some examples of Corey's poor understanding of physics:
1) He says that the "flatness" of the universe refers to the fact that it can be accurately described with Euclidean geometry, that space-time is fortuitously not curved, and that life can only exist in a universe consistent with Euclidean geometry. Ouch! There is just no salvaging this kind of tangential blunder.
2) He says that most stars are like ours because they are "main sequence" stars. This seems to demonstrate a poor understanding. The main sequence is the long, 'star-like' phase typical of several classes of stars. Our star (the sun) is actually UNLIKE the vast majority of stars; as a Class G star, only about 8% of other stars are 'similar'. By far most stars are Class M and are decidedly different from our sun (they cannot have systems that host life as we know it).
3) He calls 10 to the negative 39th power a "huge number." Perhaps he means "huge" as in its largeness of extreme smallness??
At any rate, Corey too frequently 'shoots himself in the foot' with erroneous 'scientific' commentary. His book could have been much better if he could have stayed out of his own way. The book's slightly redeeming value is that the scientifically uniformed reader will not notice the author's interpretational gaffes (which are generally tangential and superfluous to his central thesis). The book is also a pretty good bibliographical source for more serious study. In short, the book's potential merits are conspicuously sullied by its author's careless commentary.
Just make sure you read "The God Delusion" as well.......2006-11-15
Every single one of Corey's points is debunked in Dawkins' book.
Of course, if you find the placebo effect of believing in a Supreme Being provides you comfort, and truth is relatively unimportant, avoid Dawkins' book and believe what you want to believe.
Masterpiece.......2005-02-15
This book is about as near as Christianity can get to an additional sacred revelation. In its pages Corey gives an immensly intimate look at God in His artistic facet as Creator of the universe. Upon completing the book, I was both mentally and spiritually satiated, and felt as if I had actually been shown the glorious blueprints of the universe as once abstracted in the mind of God. The details of Gods creative plan are so vividly depicted that reading the book is practically analogous to viewing a collection of art work painted by Christ Himself! This book is destined for immortality, and will be remembered in a thousand years from now as the most awe-inspiring scientific work of humankind.
Convincing, satisfying & complete.......2004-09-14
Why 5 Stars? From all the books that I've read on Intelligent Design, this is by far the most complete & satisfying. Reading through the book one must appreciate the thorough research done by Mr Corey, based on which he forms a convincing case for 'The God Hypothesis'.
Using the latest empirical data Corey shows how our universe was 'fine-tuned' at the big-bang without which life would have been impossible, simultaneously shows why counter theories against multiple universes and big-bangs are not plausible. Here are a few specific points on why I recommend this book:
- It's easy to read. As a business student I thought I would be struggling through the book, but that was not the case. Corey has a gift of expressing his thoughts in a clear style. I found the book to be readable and throught-provoking.
- Often books on this subject only deal with the evidence that point to a God, talking little or nothing about the kind of God the evidence shows. But Corey has taken the extra step to discuss the various attributes of God that can be inferred from the available evidence.
- His arguments are not camouflaged in paragraphs for the reader to look out for, but he presents it logically in syllogistic style with no loose ends.
- He gives wonderful insights from a wide variety of people coming from different backgrounds. From scientists like Hawking & Hoyle to philosophers like Kant & Hick.
- Corey presents several counter-arguments against those who have objections to an Intelligent designer. He deals with Richard Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker to Lee Smolin's Baby universes and many others. The author very clearly shows that the Blind Watchmaker, using mindless chance & natural selection alone, cannot explain the design & specified complexity in the universe because it ultimately begs the question since Natural Selection itself contains properties that such as self-replicating that are highly complex & therefore cannot just be assumed for the pupose of removing the role of an Intelligent Designer.
- Some of the other questions that skeptics ask are answered by Corey:
a) If God created this universe for mankind, why didn't he create it in an instantaneous fiat, instead of billions of years of evolution?
b) Why is the fine-tuning not a another God of the Gaps problem?
c) Why is it not reasonable to attribute the fine-tuning to an accident or coincidence?
d) Why does God choose to present himself indirectly through natural causes?
I highly recommend this book to those have doubts in their mind about the relationship between God & Science but don't know where to start or those who would like a fresh insight into the latest scientific evidence that point to a Creator. This book is also great for the believers who wish to learn how to present the argument for God in a scientific fashion.
In the library of Intelligent Design Books, "The God Hypothesis" will remain a star for times to come.
Book Description
"THE HEAVENS ARE TELLING THE GLORY OF GOD; AND THE FIRMAMENT PROCLAIMS HIS HANDIWORK."-Psalm 19:1
Few of us can venture outside on a clear, dark night and not pause for a silent, reflective look at the stars. For countless centuries people have felt a sense of wonder about the heavens. How did our universe come into being? Has it always been here? Is our existence due to random chance or supernatural design? Is God "out there"? If so, what is He like?
Traditionally, the church has answered such questions with Scripture, while science has contributed theories and formulas of its own. Torn between a deep respect for church doctrines and an intellectual need for answers that support what their senses are telling them, many Christians have avoided such discussions altogether.
Actually, the two sides are no longer that far apart. In The Creator and the Cosmos, astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross explains how recent scientific measurements of the universe have clearly pointed to the existence of God. Whether you're looking for scientific support for your faith or new reasons to believe, The Creator and the Cosmos will enable you to see the Creator for yourself.
"A compelling summary of scientific evidence that supports belief in God and the Word of God, written on a level even the non-technically trained lay person can understand."-Walter L. Bradley, professor and head of the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Texas A&M University
"In The Creator and the Cosmos, Dr. Hugh Ross shows how recent cosmological discoveries clearly indicate the universe was created with many characteristics fine-tuned for our life. Though many scientists may resist the logical conclusion, the Creator implied by the scientific evidence is exactly consistent with the God revealed in the Bible."-Dr. Kyle M. Cudworth, Yerkes Observatory, University of Chicago
"The Creator and the Cosmos constitutes a remarkable journey through the most recent scientific findings, providing overwhelming support for design in our universe. Dr. Ross has documented the evidence for design in our universe in such a thorough yet readable style that it will prove to be of great value both to the science student as well as to the interested layperson."-Dr. David H. Rogstad, physicist, Caltech Jet Propulsion Laboratory TABLE OF CONTENTS: Chapter 1: The Awe-Inspiring Night Sky Chapter 2: My Skeptical Inquiry Chapter 3: The Discovery of the Century Chapter 4: The Matter Mystery Chapter 5: The Beautiful Fit Chapter 6: Einstein's Challenge Chapter 7: Closing Loopholes-Round One Chapter 8: Closing Loopholes-Round Two Chapter 9: Science Discovers Time Before Time Chapter 10: A God Outside of Time, But Knowable Chapter 11: A Brief Look at A Brief History of Time Chapter 12: A Modern-Day Goliath Chapter 13: The Divine Watchmaker Chapter 14: A "Just Right" Universe Chapter 15: Earth-The Place for Life Chapter 16: Building Life Chapter 17: Extra-Dimensional Power Chapter 18: The Point
Customer Reviews:
Impressive follow up to The Fingerprint of God.......2004-04-17
Dr. Ross does a fantastic job presenting the latest scientific discoveries and their implications.
A god or the god?.......2003-12-01
I browsed through several chapters of the book, it bascially states by probability argument that the chance we exist today by random variation is really slim without an intelligent designer. However, the author in his first chapters set out to prove that the designer is not just a god, but the god of the Bible, and the god of the Christian faith, and the Bible is as flawless as any physical laws we know now. In the later chapters, he fails to address the accuracy of the Bible by providing concrete experiemtal evidence or refute most of the inacurrate claims in the Bible.
great.......2003-08-20
This is a very powerful book, I highly recommend it to everyone especially atheist or people who have very little faith in their God. This book is not only informative but also very interesting and readers will surely enjoy this book. Anyone can read this book even layperson because the author has made it sure that everyone can understand what is written in this book. I suggest you buy this book, you will not regret it.
Good book, average apologetic.......2002-01-05
Ross continues to get hammered for his local flood theory, but fact is, it's not his idea. The local flood idea was around long before Hugh Ross. Furthermore, it is not even the central theme of this book. This book does a good job of proving the existence of a god. Unfortunately is falls short of being an effective apologetic for the Christian God. This is not a result of Ross' writing, but rather his approach. Recent cosomological discoveries are certainly proving the existence of a creator, as Hawking now understands. But even Hume understood a creator in the universe. That didn't make him a Christan. This is a good book for Christians to bolster their faith and study an old earth perspective, but it probably isn't the best apologetic for the unbeliever.
Why old-earth ideas are incompatible with a global flood.......2001-06-24
Acceptance of old-earth ideas, including the Big Bang, progressive creation, theistic evolution, the framework hypothesis, etc., necessarily implies downgrading the Flood of Noah's day from worldwide in scope to merely one of local extent. For example, the author, Dr. Hugh Ross (an aggressive advocate of billions of years for the earth's age) vigorously denies the global flood. He calls it "universal," covering all that Noah could see, but not the entire earth. This insistence does not come from sound Biblical exegesis, but from the incompatibility of a global flood with old-earth thinking, which he accepts. The evidence for great ages is thought to be found in the rock and fossil records of the earth's crust. These are interpreted by the principle of uniformitarianism, that "the present is the key to the past." Since geologic processes happen slowly today, they argue, the extensive rock and fossil records must have taken great lengths of time to form.
However, a flood of the proportions described in Genesis would have resulted in vast amounts of erosion and redepositing of sediments, fossilization of plants and animals, volcanism, and redistribution of radioisotopes. If one denies the global flood as a historic event, he might use the Grand Canyon/Colorado River system to "prove" great ages, when, in reality, the Canyon demonstrates flooding processes with rates, scales, and intensities eclipsing anything observed today. Thus the misunderstood evidence of old ages, is actually strong evidence for the Flood. In reality, the global flood and recent creation doctrines are synonymous concepts, forcing Dr. Ross and others to twist Scripture, making it say something it clearly does not. To document that the Bible specifically teaches the global flood should be sufficient to convince a true believer in the authority of the Bible.
Mr. Ross rightly claims that the word "all" can sometimes be used in a limited sense (e.g., Genesis 41:57); thus the terms used in the flood account might be similarly limited. But proper Biblical exegesis involves discerning the meaning of words in their immediate context. A passage cannot be interpreted by vaguely possible meanings. An honest look at the flood account uncovers an abundance of terms and phrases, each of which is best understood in a global sense. Taken together as forming the context for each other, the case is overwhelming. The global extent of the Flood is referred to more than 30 times in Genesis 6-9 alone!
It would seem that the Author of Genesis could hardly have been more explicit. Conversely, if the omniscient Author had intended to describe a local flood, He obscured the facts. If words can communicate truth, if God can express Himself clearly, then the Flood was global.
It would seem that only a rank downgrading of Scripture, and/or an unhealthy desire for the approval of unsaved men could lead one to question this doctrine. I would call on my Christian brothers, who choose to hold on to the idea of a local flood and its corollary concept, the old earth, either to return to a God-honoring trust in Scripture, or else to cease using the term "Bible-believing" to describe their position.
I recommend clicking the "publications" link on ICR's (Institute for Creation Research) website, and browsing the highly informative (and voluminous) "Impact", "Back to Genesis" and "Dr. John's Q&A" sections.
I also recommend reading "The Young Earth" by John Morris, Ph.D. Geologist (available from Amazon).
Book Description
In the modern age science has been winning its centuries—old battle with religion for the mind of man. The evidence has long seemed incontrovertible: Life was merely a product of blind chance—a cosmic roll of an infinite number of dice across an eternity of time. Slowly, methodically, scientists supplied answers to mysteries insufficiently explained by theologians. Reason pushed faith off into the shadows of mythology and superstition, while atheism became a badge of wisdom. Our culture, freed from moral obligation, explored the frontiers of secularism. God was dead.
"Glynn's arguments for the existence of God put the burden of disproof on those intellectuals who think that the question has long since been settled." — Andrew M. Greeley
But now, in the twilight of the twentieth century, a startling transformation is taking place in Western scientific and intellectual thought. At its heart is the dawning realization that the universe, far from being a sea of chaos, appears instead to be an intricately tuned mechanism whose every molecule, whose every physical law, seems to have been design from the very first nanosecond of the big bang toward a single end—the creation of life. This intellectually and spiritually riveting book asks a provocative question: Is science, the long-time nemesis of the Deity, uncovering the face of God?
Patrick Glynn lays out the astonishing new evidence that caused him to turn away from the atheism he acquired as a student at Harvard and Cambridge. The facts are fascinating: Physicists are discovering an unexplainable order to the cosmos; medical researchers are reporting the extraordinary healing powers of prayer and are documenting credible accounts of near-death experiences; psychologists, who once considered belief in God to be a sign of neurosis, are finding instead that religious faith is a powerful elixir for mental health; and sociologists are now acknowledging the destructive consequences of a value-free society.
God: The Evidence argues that faith today is not grounded in ignorance. It is where reason has been leading us all along.
Customer Reviews:
One of the Flimsiest, Most Assumptive Books Ever.......2007-03-12
Other reviews have covered this ground but - the Anthropic Principle - the cornerstone of this book, is not a principle at all. It is well, a notion. To say that we evolved here is proof that there's a "knob-turner" being that wanted it that way is rather narcissistic isn't it? This book takes this point as a decided-upon truth in science. Um, no, that's simply not true.
If this is any measure- the most interesting section in this book, in my opinion, were the dicey stories about near-death experience. Yes! Near-death experience if you can believe that. While they all sound dubious, at least they are FIRST-HAND TESTIMONY of an experience, and not the endless speculation and extrapolation we get from the religious world.
Buy "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong and decide for yourself if there's a God. I don't know how you can make up your mind without first looking at God's insane history with mankind, who revised him, changed him, and appropriated him however was needed since the dawn of time.
God the Evidence........2005-10-24
Marketing geniuses and editorial brain trusts, who often make or at least influence such decisions, like to title/subtitle books "THE evidence . . ." or "THE case for . . .", etc, but it's generally a glossy overstatement. THE evidence would have to be ostensibly exhaustive, wouldn't it, and I sincerely doubt such a thing is possible when it comes to God, or many lesser entities or phenomena for that matter. As if my skeptical sense of the book, based on its ambitious title, needed reinforcement, as I began to read I found an even stronger reason for concern. It seems that Glynn, a former atheist now Christian apologist, was going to be discussing near-death experiences as part of his exposition on evidence of God's existence. I'd rate NDEs right up there with the Shroud of Turin when it comes to being "evidence." Sensational, yes, but hopelessly ambiguous and arguable at best, and probably misguided. But, in the end, NDEs don't figure very prominently in Glynn's overall argument. Although he discusses NDEs at some length, revealing some rather interesting cases that resist skeptical treatment, he is clear that these cases present, at best, a possible inference that consciousness can exist apart from a material body. "Intimations", he calls it, not "evidence." Well, okay, genuine curiosity with direct admission of ignorance is generally a good thing. I had feared that Glynn was going to be "nutty" on this topic, especially given some of his early mentionings of NDEs, but it turned out a little better than I'd expected. However, this discussion probably detracts from, more than contributes to, what the author is arguing for -- evidence of the truth of the Christian conception of God. He admits that many Christians are skeptical of NDEs. I obviously would not have included this topic in a hardheaded work of apologetics.
Otherwise the book was okay, and, on some points, strong enough to be considered good popular-level apologetics. Glynn demonstrates a rather sound understanding of the implications of the so-called anthropic cosmological principle, saying that, from a materialist's perspective: "The whole picture is damnably disconcerting; a universe with a beginning, designed for man. Many scientists want this picture to go away." This chapter, 'A Not-So-Random Universe,' could have been developed further. The chapters examining the evidential relationship of theistic belief with psychological and physiological health and well-being, and contrasting this relation with nihilistic/atheistic views and physical/psychological/mental health relationships, was also interesting. Detractors will rightly note that evidence for pragmatic health benefits associated with theistic belief do not necessarily translate as evidence of God's existence. This type of discussion ('how does one best live?') is relevant to 'quality of life' considerations but is only loosely teleological and isn't likely to impress many atheists.
The book is far from perfect but it has its strong points and it maintains the reader's interest. All in all, with the qualifiers stated above and a few others, I do recommend it, although not highly.
Meandering and Wishy-Washy.......2005-09-14
I am a Christian who reads these sorts of books frequently. This is easily the worst book of this sort I've ever read.
First, Glynn simply isn't a very good author. His style is awkward and unengaging, and he often repeats himself.
Second, he takes away with his left hand what he tries to give with his right. At times he seems to affirm the New Testament and Christ, but at other times he offers up a kind of universalism (e.g. Hindu near-death-experiences of Krishna prove that God sends to us after death whoever we'll be most comfortable with). At other times, he supports the idea that any belief at all is sufficient, as "proved" by prayer and meditation being medically effective regardless of the content of the patient's "faith".
Glynn's theology seems to be pick-and-choose. He likes what he likes (like the Sermon on the Mount) and rejects what he doesn't like (like some New Testament commands concerning women, and apparently nearly all of the Old Testament). All of this combines the be a poor apologetic indeed. To follow his example appears to mean accepting what you want and rejecting what you don't want, which hardly seems controversial.
Lastly, he simply doesn't do a good job of collecting or presenting evidence. Instead of this, I'd recommend the book, "God?: A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist" by Craig and Sinnot-Armstrong. It's easily twice the book this one is, and half of it was written by an atheist!
Don't think this is strictly scientific.......2005-07-20
Why do we hang on science for evidence of God? Must there be some sort of equation? Must we see ultimate fate to believe? Glynn attempts to say no, that there is overwhelming evidence of God in the world now, even though many claim him "dead."
Glynn doesn't speak much about the scientific proofs of God. But, he does mention the hated Anthropic Principal. Which is "too convenient," according to evolutionists. Interestingly, though Glynn believes in "God," and that the world cannot have come by chance, he does seem to believe that the world started billions of years ago. Only to later argue that "gradualism" evolution is phony. So, the world existed, but nothing happened for billions of years. That's the weakest link of the book, in my opinion.
IF YOU WANT SOME REAL scientific proof that evolution is struggling, take a look at a Kansas school board's findings while conducting research on the true validity of evolution. It seems that a BUNCH of scientists think that it is no longer Truth, but philosophy. http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/schearingff.pdf It is a PDF file, and quite long, but it really is worth reading. Really.
Glynn does offer some revealing common-sense proofs that God exists. For example, Glynn discusses the age of pure Darwinism. That is, when Darwinism had the church (or science for that matter) in a headlock, and so people lived as if they had to answer for nothing. The "roaring 20's," and 60's and 70's are perfect examples. The 20's brought out the social policy actually dubbed "social Darwinism." Because of this, few gained riches, while millions of others lived in poverty. Then came the depression. The 60's and 70's brought about sex, drugs, and "peace." It's kind of hard to live with peace when your crotch burns from sexually transmitted diseases. While the former of the two is not mentioned (I made that connection myself, after, of course, reading the latter), it is interesting how we tend to pay when we "kill" God. Could that be chance? Sure, says Glynn, if that helps you sleep better at night.
Glynn also speaks of the changes being made in philosophy, the fraud of Freud, and how mental health seems to be connected with religion. This, though, should be taken quite lightly. Statistics can ALWAYS be twisted to support someone's views. As someone once said, "there are lies, and then there are statistics."
Finally, Glynn discusses NDE's. I recently read a book entitled, 90 Minutes in Heaven, which discusses these and I would take a gander if I had the time. But, Glynn talks about Moody's work mostly. Now, I really liked what he said. But, it seems Moody has changed his mind on NDE's himself. Though I am not sure at the implications, I would read up on that myself, and not take anything without personal research. What was given was fascinating, and what's more, in a recent Scientific American, one writer admits to NDE's, but attempts to say that our brains are "wired for them." It seems odd, but possible, I guess.
Glynn is no literary master. In fact, I think a 12 year old, with a decent education, could read this book. With the oddity of time aside, Glynn packs a pretty powerful punch. It's certainly worth a read.
Ex-Atheist's Case For God's Existence.......2004-03-26
I once saw the author of this book on a TV interview discussing it and the ideas behind it. I had just been flipping through the channels, and suddenly, there appeared a prominent scholar talking intellectually about science in relation to religion. For a long time I too had been coming to realize that the pre-Enlightenment "nature philosophers" of the 16th and 17th century were right, and it wasn't until materialism (Diderot, Comte) in the 18th century and positivism in the 19th century (Darwin, Nietzsche) took hold that science and religion, once inseperable, drew more and more apart and at an increasingly accelerated pace.
What I liked about this book was its clarity, its readability; the scholarly elucidations are at once essential and accessible, and the author makes his arguments effectively, using scientific facts to back them up. I found it riveting, especially the first part, the first 50 or so pages dealing with cosmology and physics. This is the strongest part of the book with the best arguments for God's existence. I'm a novelist, so I consider myself a student of human nature--anthropology, philosophy, and theology interest me and I use what I learn in my fiction, often developing my own ideas on things. "God The Evidence" has enlightened me in several areas. Highly recommended.
David Rehak
author of "A Young Girl's Crimes"
Average customer rating:
- Corey is an intellectual anamoly
- This book sucks
- Corey presents a convincing case for the existence of God.
- A Laughable Treatment of an Interesting Topic
- Pseudo-science and (really) bad philosophy
|
God and the New Cosmology
Michael Corey
Manufacturer: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback
 General
| Philosophy
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Philosophy of Religion
| Philosophy
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Religion & Spirituality
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Theology
| Religious Studies
| Religion & Spirituality
| Subjects
| Books
General
| History & Philosophy
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
ASIN: 0847678024 |
Book Description
Given the excellent historical context in which Corey frames his case and the rational manner in which he closes off the loopholes, the stage is set for paradigm shift in the secular area. I highly recommend this book.-Hugh Ross, Astronomer
Customer Reviews:
Corey is an intellectual anamoly.......2005-01-19
Dear Dr. Corey,
I swear, you would make a great X-file episode. How is it humanly possible to not only "KNOW OF" every single position, on every single scientific topic ever cogitated by mankind, but to also posess and in-detpth "COMPREHENSION OF" every single position as well?? I marvel when I thumb throgh the bibliographies in the back of your books. You are the scientific equivalent of Bach. I remember reading one time, that it would take a highly skilled transcriptionist 80 years to simply HAND COPY, all the works of Bach..Let alone create them-all in a single lifetime!! Bach explained this phenomenon by stating "the music doesn't come FROM him, but rather THROUGH him. This is you to a "T". Cannot everybody see, that you are an anomoly, a super human? One of those figures that show up in history every few hundred years? God created you to both TEACH and INSPIRE.
This book sucks.......2003-12-04
Honestly, of all the books I could choose to complete this project, I am most appalled to have come upon this one. I'm surprised Yale has it in the library!
From somewhat fluid (if often false) arguments, Corey ends every line of reasoning with, 'And this proves the existence of God.' Although his previous logic was at least traceable, this last jump always comes as an incomprehensible leap of faith. But whereas faith is a perfectly reasonably condition in philosophy, basing science on it is more difficult.
He does this. With backward, circular, unscientific or all-out fallacious reasoning. How does such a thing get published?
Disgusting.
Mike
Corey presents a convincing case for the existence of God........1999-06-28
With a background in science and having been trained in theology at Claremont, which is well-known for its contribution to process theology, M.A. Corey is well-qualified to discuss how recent scientific discoveries support a belief in the God of classical theism. Indeed, the case which Corey presents is very persuasive. Corey demonstrates how extremely unlikely the existence of human beings would be unless there is an intelligent designer of the universe who very carefully chose the precise conditions that were necessary for the evolution of intelligent life. In my opinion after reading Corey's book, it would take a great leap of faith NOT to believe in an intelligent Designer of the universe. The tremendous amount of evidence that Corey skillfully marshalls in support of his argument is very persuasive.If there is any weakness in this book, it might be Corey's tendency to overstate his case. He comes very close to saying that there is no other interpretation of the evidence that makes sense other than his theistic interpretation. This is not, however, the case. Many brilliant scientists, such as the late Carl Sagan, are aware of the evidence that Corey discusses, but are not persuaded that God exists. Corey could have been a little more sympathetic to the arguments of skeptics.Nonetheless, this is a fun book to read. And, while natural theology has been out of fashion since the time of David Hume, and only a few theologians (such as Wolfhart Pannenberg) have had the courage to address the relationshipof science and theology, M.A. Corey hasdemonstrated in his book that the concept of God the Creator is still relevant in the late 20th century.
A Laughable Treatment of an Interesting Topic.......1999-04-29
A quick intro: Some books I read, find thought-provoking, and appreciate. I strongly disagree with them some of the time, strongly agree with them some of the time, most of the time a mixture of both. Some books I don't find all that thought-provoking at all. They tend to ignore potential objections and disregard interesting points. _God and the New Cosmology_ is like neither of these categories. It is a tour de force of laughable fallacy after laughable fallacy. I can scarcely read this book for more than 2 minutes without either (a) laughing out loud, or (b) yelling "Oh come on now!", or (c) widening my eyes and smacking my own head.
Since this is just an Amazon.Com review, I can't go into great detail, but I'll make a few general criticisms: (1) Corey assumes that the main problem nontheists have with natural theology is that the arguments are only probabilistic, not conclusive and deductive. Obviously this is too high of a standard to hold for empirical "proofs;" if there's enough evidence to make God's existence rather probable, then we have good reason to believe. But WHO has ever denied this? Corey wrongly attributes this viewpoint to Hume and Kant; this is an egregious philosophical insult. What seems like a full one-third of the book is Corey endlessly reiterating this obvious point.
(2) Corey never actually argues for the improbability of our universe or for the "special-ness" of our universe. These are the two primary points of contention in "fine-tuning" argument debates and Corey never seems to address them! He piles on "cosmic coincidence" after another, but never addresses the objection that there is no way to gauge the probabilities at play. Furthermore, Corey doesn't try to show why we should care about this particular coincidence -- it's certainly not obvious that this improbability should be more worthy of our curiosity than the run of a random number generator. Other proponents of this argument (John Leslie and Richard Swinburne, in particular) are known for their creative analogies in supporting this notion, but Corey doesn't even seem to realize that it is an issue. He just appeals to the Firing Squad Story, as if it were anything more than a refutation of the Weak Anthropic Principle (or the problem of old evidence).
(3) Corey makes ridiculous non sequiturs, basing his mootable inferences on the characters of skeptics. Two examples: "[O]ne would never expect non-thestic scientists... to openly mention God as a possible explanation for the cosmological evidence unless the data were so compelling that they almost had no choice in the matter. Indeed, judging from the many incredible things that these scientists have said about God's possible relationship to the cosmos, it is likely that deep down many of them actually believe in -- and are fascinated by -- the idea that God Himself may be behind the marvel of physical reality." p. 209
"[I]f a great skeptic like Hume goes so far as to say that the universe _may_ have arisen from something like design, the real truth is that it probably _did_ result from design." p. 280
First of all, the fact that these scientists address the idea of God just might be explained by (a) that they're dealing with the beginning of the universe, and (b) many people attribute extreme religious significance to this event. Second, Hume was not a "great skeptic" with respect to religion; as Hume scholar J.C.A. Gaskin describes it, Hume accepted an "attenuated deism." (_Hume's Philosophy of Religion_, pg. 7) Finally, where in the world does this inference come from? Hume was a skeptic; he thought the design argument had some merit to it, therefore, the design argument is sound and compelling? Examples of this kind of nonsense run throughout the book; you begin to think Corey is writing a psychological treatise on scientists and skeptics rather than supporting a philosophical argument.
(4) Corey begs the question by assuming that the order and complexity in the universe just cry out for an explanation. Here's how the design debate usually goes:
Theist: Look at all the order and complexity in the world! It just cries out for an explanation; and an intelligent designer -- God -- is probably the best explanation.
Atheist: Hmm...I just don't see it. Why is it so surprising that everything be ordered and complex? Certainly, we have no a priori reason to expect a simple universe rather than a complex one. And as far as I know, complex stuff happens all the time without someone designing it. You'll have to explain why I should find a complex world so curious.
And then it gets interesting and controversial. But Corey just leaves it at the first statement, assuming that the only objection anyone can make to his argument is that "it doesn't prove God's existence conclusively, beyond a shadow of a doubt, so I'm not convinced." But, as noted above, this is a stupid objection, and Corey is strawmanning to think that any skeptic worth her salt would make it.
(5) Corey is at his funniest when he tries to take on Hume (via Philo) in the chapter "The Case for Natural Theology." The points made, quite literally, look like that of a seven year old coming across Hume's _Dialogues_ for the first time. For example, the famous Anthropomorphism objection -- the one that if one uses the design proponent's logic consistently, you end up with a humanoid God -- is responded to as follows: "Just because the natural theologian can claim that _some_ similarities may exist between God and man, isn't to say that there is a _complete_ state of anthropomorphic concurrence between humans and their Creator." Well, obviously, it doesn't follow necessarily! The point is that, by the same analogical reasoning the design proponent uses, we can get conclusions which he does not accept. So the design proponent is either being inconsistent and arbitrary, or he knows a reason why we should the design inference and not the "nose, mouth, ears, etc." inference.
Corey also makes the error of reading Hume's suggestion that, when abstractly considering possible scenarios (or possible worlds), we have no reason for supposing any one to be more likely than the others, as the claim that "all possibilities which are not judged to be contradictory are equally probable." Corey then successfully refutes this feeble position, as if anyone actually thought it to be true.
There is much, much more hilarity to be had for the careful reader in this chapter.
(6) Corey's treatment of the problem of evil involves one paragraph of mentioning the free will theodicy and two paragraphs relating a Star Trek episode. Corey appears not to be aware of Mackie, McCloskey, Flew, Tooley, Rowe, Martin, Russell, Draper, Gale, Drange, et al.: the contemporary defenders of an argument from evil. Corey doesn't even say "a full treatment of this subject is beyond the scope of this book" or anything of the sort. He treats the evil objection as successfully dispatched.
I hope this walk through a few of the bigger problems with this book has given you a good idea of the quality of the ideas therein. Readers interested in the "fine-tuning" argument can find interesting discussion in John Leslie's _Universes_; _Physical Cosmology and Philosophy_ ed. John Leslie (especially the Richard Swinburne article); Robin le Poidevin's _Arguing for Atheism_; and Theodore Drange's _Nonbelief and Evil_ (the appendix on the argument). If you want a book-length evangelical tract that reads like a freshman philosophy student got drunk and just finished reading _The Anthropic Cosmological Principle_, pick up Corey's book.
Pseudo-science and (really) bad philosophy.......1997-09-17
Corey's book is a good example of bad science and even worse philosophy. Recent literature in physics and the philosophy of religion has given considerable attention to so called "fine-tuning" or anthropic arguments for God's existence. The basic idea is that the fundamental physical constants of our universe are one of a relatively small set of life permitting constants and that just about any small change thereof would make the existence of life as we know it impossible. Since it seems improbable that the constants would be what they are, the argument continues, we are justified in believing that some supernatural intelligence "fine-tuned" the universe for life.
Some versions of the argument have some degree of force, but Corey states his case FAR more strongly than is justified. Further, when he deals with objections to his position--particularly those of David Hume--it becomes abundently clear that he has absolutely no interestest in fairness or bussiness writing about philosophy. This is definitely NOT the place to look for an objective, well argued account of what is an interesting topic.
Average customer rating:
|
Cosmos and Anthropos: A Philosophical Interpretation of the Anthropic Cosmological Principle
Errol E. Harris
Manufacturer: Humanity Books
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
General
| Philosophy
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Anthropology
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
| Cultural
| Ethnobotany
| Ethnology
| Evolution
| General
| History & Philosophy
| Physical
| Primitive
| Religious
| Sociobiology
Astronomy
| Astronomy
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
Cosmology
| Astronomy
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
ASIN: 1573925985 |
Books:
- The Data Warehouse Toolkit: The Complete Guide to Dimensional Modeling (Second Edition)
- The Data Warehouse Toolkit: The Complete Guide to Dimensional Modeling (Second Edition)
- The Feynman Lectures on Physics including Feynman's Tips on Physics: The Definitive and Extended Edition
- The Feynman Lectures on Physics Volumes 1-2
- The Firm, the Market, and the Law
- The Improvement Guide: A Practical Approach to Enhancing Organizational Performance (Jossey-Bass Business and Management Series)
- The Intention Experiment: Using Your Thoughts to Change Your Life and the World
- The Official Guide for GMAT Review, 11th Edition
- The Physics of Baseball (3rd Edition)
- The Principia : Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- Ties That Bind
- The Best of America's Test Kitchen 2007: The Year's Best Recipes, Equipment Reviews, and Tastings
- Showing Our Colors: Afro-German Women Speak Out
- Nightjohn
- Paul Robeson Speaks: Writings, Speeches, and Interviews, a Centennial Celebration
- Self-Organizing Maps
- Rail-trails Southeast: Alabama, Florida ,georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Caro
- A Fortune at Your Feet: Millennium II Edition: How You Can Get Rich, Stay Rich, and Enjoy Being Ric
- Put Time Management to Work: Get Organized, Streamline Processes, Use the Right Technology
- Palestine Investment & Business Guide
Beyond the Cosmos: The Extra-Dimensionality of God : What Recent Discoveries in Astrophysics Reveal About the Glory and Love of God
The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis
A Matter of Days: Resolving a Creation Controversy
Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off
Who Was Adam?: A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man
