The God Hypothesis: Discovering Design in Our Just Right Goldilocks Universe [Hardcover]

Michael A. Corey (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: November 27, 2001

Seeks to reverse these profound misunderstandings by showing how the latest scientific evidence points in precisely the opposite direction.

Editorial Reviews

Review

The God Hypothesis . . . is excellent! M. A. Corey has done tremendous research. His argument is clear and convincing, [and] his clear and lively writing style makes the most complex scientific material within the range of an educated reader who is willing to think a bit. I hope [the] book is widely read. It will not convince the die-hards (nothing will) but will nourish many people like myself. As always with Corey's writings, his ideas are full of surprises and insights. It is 'guaranteed' that the reader of this book will come away with ideas and insights s/he did not have before. (John A. Sanford )

The God Hypothesis . . . is excellent! M. A. Corey has done tremendous research. His argument is clear and convincing, [and] his clear and lively writing style makes the most complex scientific material within the range of an educated reader who is willing to think a bit. I hope [the] book is widely read. It will not convince the die-hards (nothing will) but will nourish many people like myself. As always with Corey's writings, his ideas are full of surprises and insights. It is 'guaranteed' that the reader of this book will come away with ideas and insights s/he did not have before. (John A. Sanford )

Corey's treatment of the anthropic principle does provide an excellent insight into how the anthropic principle can be fashioned into an effective apologetic for the traditional Judeo-Christian notion of a creator. (Research News and Opportunities In Science and Technology )

An enthusiastic defense of the anthropic principle as an argument of the existence of God. (Science and Theology News )

Michael Corey has clearly made an enormous effort in producing his book. It is almost encyclopedic in its mining of the discussion of what's become known as 'fine-tuning.' (Reports Of The National Center For Science Education )

About the Author

Michael A. Corey has spent the last decade researching questions of science and religion and is author of several books on the subject including God and the New Cosmology (Rowman & Littlefield, 1993). He lives in Charleston, West Virginia. --This text refers to the Paperback edition.

Product Details

• Hardcover: 360 pages
• Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers (November 27, 2001)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0742520544
• ISBN-13: 978-0742520547
• Product Dimensions: 9.2 x 6.2 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.3 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.3 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (9 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,047,099 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

22 of 27 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Oops. (Reckless, but slightly better than 2 stars), June 26, 2007

By 

Wesley L. Janssen (San Diego, CA USA) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The God Hypothesis: Discovering Design in Our Just Right Goldilocks Universe (Paperback)

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: Gribbin, 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.

36 of 52 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Intriguing, accessible, January 17, 2002

By A Customer

This review is from: The God Hypothesis: Discovering Design in Our Just Right Goldilocks Universe (Hardcover)

The subject of Corey's book is a controversial one: the anthropic principle, or whether the beautiful complexity of our universe is evidence of its creator. While not everyone will come away convinced that this "just right" world indicates the presence of God, Corey musters some fascinating ideas from contemporary science that may just open even the tightest-closed mind.

21 of 35 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Not very original, April 26, 2004

By 

mannevit (California, USA) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The God Hypothesis: Discovering Design in Our Just Right Goldilocks Universe (Hardcover)

There are many books on the market advocating intelligent design, and it seems that Mr. Corey has read most of them. He quotes liberally from them, as well as many recent popular science books. However, there is little original thought in his book. He does not present any new ideas, but merely rewords already established ones to create his story about the "Goldilocks Universe".

One could argue then that his book is a review of one particular view on intelligent design. However, since his arguments are mainly drawn from popular science works, and not so much from serious publications, they fail to impress the discerning reader.

To back up his theory, he names many scientists from the past several hundred years who believed in a "personal creator". While this is fine, it does not serve as a valid argument today. A lot of very smart people used to believe that the earth is flat; this fact does not make those people any less smart, and does not make the earth any flatter.

He argues that because many of the fundamental constants of the universe have to be precisely a certain value for the universe to be stable enough to support life, then it must be intelligently designed. But there could have been countless Big Bangs that we don't know about that did not have these parameters just right, and the fact that we live in one that does, does not demonstrate anything but the fact that we exist. If we did not exist, we would not be here arguing about it. This is a lot like being amazed that one's legs are precisely long enough to reach down to the ground.

Although he continues to present different material throughout the book, the ideas he presents repeat themselves endlessly, and by the middle of the book one becomes bored with the repetition. Also, from the beginning of the book, he makes the assumption that a "personal creator" exists. He does not gradually build a case for his theory and then present the conclusion. This results in a book where one is presented with "astounding" observations that miraculously support the already foregone conclusion, leading to the assertion that God is Great.

Mr. Corey is preaching a sermon to the choir, and anyone who is a member of the choir will likely think the book is marvelous, while someone who is not is likely to be left wanting.