I was approached recently to give my opinion on the latest book that searches for material evidence of God. An eternally difficult proposition, as many people who state that they want an objective opinion on this subject find it very difficult to keep an open mind when it comes to issues that touch upon religion. This is understandable as it is hard not to take things personally when religion is such a personal matter. However, I feel that most people can see that an argument in a book is an argument in a book. The author either makes a good case based on sound facts or he doesn’t. I was in luck. The book in question here is “Darwin’s Doubt”.
“Darwin’s Doubt” is written by Stephen Meyer, a Ph. D. from the University of Cambridge in the philosophy of science. It is an engaging read and very skillfully done. His argument for creationism is not a new one, but Meyer does a good job of employing the accessories of science, such as referencing journals and conferences as well as accurately using Latinate terminology. I find the reliance on collected scientific information interesting, as one of his main points on “knowledge” is that if there is something in the universe that we do not currently understand, then we should assume that it is the work of a supreme deity. The dependence on faith to understand our physical world aside, Meyer has plenty of other problems understanding key concepts in the fields of genetics, as well as either not understanding fundamental statistical techniques or purposefully misrepresenting information. I leave that distinction in the readers’ hands. If you are interested in having a closer look, a lengthy review can be found in the New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/07/doubting-stephen-meyers-darwins-doubt.html My opinion is that while Stephen Meyer has failed to produce a book that provides the material evidence of God, he has succeeded in creating a work that will certainly continue the conversation on the origins of the universe.