Although I have yet to read this book, the title and description basically say it all. The author is clearly of the "old school" variety, who thinks that science is a sufficient explanation for everything that exists. However, as I demonstrate on purely scientific grounds in my book THE GOD HYPOTHESIS, the facts of science are precisely what we would expect if there were NO God. I'm talking about scientific facts here, and not scientific conjectures which may or may not be true, like the many worlds hypothesis. It would be patently false to dismiss a theistic universe based on the mere possibility of multiple universes, none of which have been seen. Just because the reality of evil exists in our world, furthermore, is no reason to believe that God didn't create it. Please refer to my previous book EVOLUTION AND THE PROBLEM OF NATURAL EVIL to see how both natural and moral evils are fully compatible with the God of classical theism. Anti-theistic authors like Dawkins have no possible way of explaining how all of the laws and constants of nature literally coalesced out of the Big Bang just a few microseconds after it transpired, fully assembled and ready to generate a life supporting world some 13.7 billion years later. This instant fine-tuning for life is a clear give-away that it was planned and executed by a Supreme Being. Sometimes, preexisting non-theistic prejudices simply get the better of otherwise brilliant scientists, especially when the entire edifice of modern science has at least recently been based on an atheistic model. But what does the author have to say about the fact that the Founding Fathers of the modern sientific movement were essentially ALL theists, as John Barrow has repeatedly pointed out?
Michael A. Corey, Ph.D.