Category: book reviews

Home / Category: book reviews

In last Saturday’s New York Times, Christian columnist Ross Douthat asks, “Can the Meritocracy Find God?”

"The secularization of America probably won’t reverse unless the intelligentsia gets religion,” writes Douthat. Nor is he sanguine for the prospects of that occurring. Douthat postulates two primary obstacles. First, “a moral vision that regards emancipated, self-directed choice as essential to human freedom and the good life.” Second, an entrenched anti-supernaturalism:

“The average Ivy League professor, management consultant or Google engineer is not necessarily a strict materialist, but they have all been trained in a kind of scientism, which regards strong religious belief as fundamentally anti-rational, miracles as superstition, the idea of a personal God as so much wishful thinking.”

One eminent thinker and scholar who has pushed back against that anti-supernaturalism is Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, geophysicist, philosopher, professor, and author whose 1991 doctoral thesis at Cambridge University examined the status of origin-of-life research. Meyer is best known as the author of “Signature in the Cell: DNA and the evidence for intelligent design” (2009) and “Darwin’s Doubt: the explosive origin of animal life and the case for intelligent design” (2013). In 2002 he left his tenured position at Whitworth College to become full-time director of the Center for Science and Culture, part of the Discovery Institute.

Meyer’s newest contribution to the apologetic realm is “Return of the God Hypothesis: Three scientific discoveries that reveal the mind behind the Universe”, released on March 30, 2021.[1] In this extensively researched, meticulously documented 450-page tome, Dr. Meyer zeroes in on three of the most challenging questions in the science of origins:

1) If the “Big Bang” caused the universe, what caused the “Big Bang”?

2) What accounts for the incredible fine-tuning in physical laws and the parameters of early expansion necessary for matter, stars, planets, and life to even be possible?

3) What explains the origin of life and the information encoded within DNA necessary for any form of life, particularly the highly advanced forms which appeared “suddenly” (on a geological timescale) in the Cambrian explosion (ca. 540 Mya)?

In each case, Meyer demonstrates quite clearly - and accurately - that there is no viable natural explanation. After explaining the current state of science on these questions, Meyer frames them within the much broader context of epistemology, logic, metaphysics, Bayesian analysis, and information theory to conclude that among all possible options, Theism offers the most probable, coherent, and intellectually satisfying answer to otherwise intractable mysteries.

The science and doctrines of origins have been a hotbed of controversy for many decades. Both emotions and overconfidence run high and thoughtful dialogue is far too rare. Dr. Meyer is no hard-charging polemicist. Almost to a fault, he approaches his critics with gentleness and respect and takes their arguments seriously. Indeed, one might frame his new work as an extended response to the most salient criticisms of the last several years.

So what are those criticisms? Well, according to Wikipedia “Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God” - revealing mostly an intense, if unsophisticated, ideological bias among editors at Wikipedia who rule with an iron mouse. Nonetheless, Meyer thoroughly and effectively disassembles that characterization with chapter upon chapter of careful reasoning and irrefutable evidence.

More thoughtful criticisms come from the scientists affiliated with BioLogos, a group founded by Francis Collins who identify themselves as "evolutionary creationists". They have been frequently critical of the Discovery Institute and Intelligent Design (ID) for reasons that are more philosophical than scientific.[2] To understand Meyer’s argument and why he frames it as he does, it helps to understand debates of the last decade in which Meyer has been a central figure. BioLogos figures prominently in that story.

In his autobiographical testimony, “The Language of God”, the current NIH director and former head of the human genome project describes his coming to faith after being deeply influenced by the “moral argument” for God, famously articulated by C. S. Lewis in “Mere Christianity”. Yet in Chapter 3, “The Origins of the Universe”, Dr. Collins specifically invokes Meyer’s first two arguments as convincing scientific evidence in favor of - if not completely proving - God.[3] BioLogos mostly takes issue when Meyer steps into biology, not surprising since that was the focus of Meyer’s first two books and they primarily identify as Christians who accept undirected evolution as sufficient to explain all of life's complexity.

On the matter of design in biology, it is not as though Meyer and ID proponents have been formally refuted. That would be easy if the evidence exists. One must simply account for the assembly of cells out of inorganic precursors, and the origin of biological information encoded in DNA, and the case would be closed. (For anyone feeling up to the task, here is a $10,000,000 prize with your name on it). The ID movement is famous for emphasizing the presence of “irreducible complexity” in biological structures. This has been a source of much contention. In some instances, their examples have not been so compelling as initially thought, but those disputes amount to little more than quibbling over examples, not the underlying principles. BioLogos has been very critical of the idea of irreducible complexity, but in “Return of the God Hypothesis” it is conspicuous mostly for its absence apart from the origin-of-life discussion.

Another objection from the BioLogos community is that ID commits a “God of the gaps” fallacy in citing shortcomings of evolution as evidence for God. (More than one observer has noted that the same objection could be raised against the moral and cosmological arguments preferred by BioLogos). Obviously sensitive to that accusation, Meyer dedicates an entire chapter (“Acts of God or God of the Gaps?) to the challenge. In this Meyer acquits himself admirably, though more could be said. Given the current state of origin-of-life research, the word "gap" seems inadequate to describe a vast, impenetrable expanse of darkness. In “The End of Science” agnostic science writer John Horgan identified the origin of life as a problem that likely never would be solved.[4] Twenty years later, Horgan remains just as doubtful.

[This raises an interesting philosophical question, though. Suppose one had to choose theism versus atheism on the origin of life alone. Would you bet your eternal destiny, or that of someone you care for, on the possibility that someday, somehow, the origin of life will be explained? How do you prove a negative? How long would it take to prove it’s unsolvable? Another 20 years? One hundred years? A thousand years? Who can afford to wait? The only rational approach is to decide on what we know now, not what we might or might not know in the future.]

Now, BioLogos is concerned that the faith of some is shattered when it is based on particular “gaps” that ultimately are explained. Such would be a shallow faith indeed. They are quite correct that the faith of many has been shipwrecked on the rocks of science - sometimes by bad science, often just because they were taught very bad science. But there’s little or no evidence that anyone’s faith has been undermined by an approach resembling that of Meyer. (It was the design argument, especially in biology, that convinced me of God's reality back when I was young. Obviously, telling me I was duped into my faith is going to be a hard sell).

In principle, BioLogos objects to seeing design in biology and invoking that as evidence for God, as Meyer consistently has done. Yet sometimes their own position doesn’t seem fully thought out. BioLogos scientists unabashedly declare themselves as believers in creation. While they explicitly reject Deism and affirm God’s subsequent intervention in human affairs and incarnation in Christ, their view of creation is such that undirected evolution is sufficient to explain the complexity and diversity of life - and ultimate appearance of humans:

“Once evolution got underway, no special supernatural intervention was required”

- Collins, Language of God

Meyer notes that this necessarily imposes teleology upon evolution - a principle decisively rejected by almost all secular evolutionary biologists and for which there is no compelling evidence. [Although many Christians think evolution is unacceptable in any form, in practice our disagreements are really more over the scope of evolution rather than its existence. Here, for example.]

Denis Lamoureux of St Joseph’s College in Alberta holds Ph.D.’s in both theology and evolutionary biology and is credited with coining the term “evolutionary creation” (EC) favored by BioLogos. Officially he is not a part of the organization, but there is a definite symbiosis and mutual respect. As Meyer notes, Lamoureux argued that God’s plan for creating life and humans was embedded within the design of the universe from the instant of creation.

Elsewhere, Lamoureux has written: “The Creator loaded into the Big Bang the plan and capability for the cosmos and living organisms, including humans, to evolve over 10-15 billion years.”[5] According to Lamoureux, “design is evident in the finely-tuned physical laws and initial conditions necessary for the evolution of the cosmos through the Big Bang, and design is also apparent in the biological processes necessary for life to evolve, including humans with their incredibly complex brains.” [italics added] Repeatedly, he affirms the principle (and terminology) of “intelligent design” in nature reflecting the handiwork of a Creator.

Meyer fairly points out the difficulty in framing this position as more scientifically sound or palatable than some other version of evolution in which God is actively involved. To postulate that the information for life up to and including humans was embedded in the original design of the cosmos goes far beyond anything within the realm of known science. There is no known natural mechanism by which that information could have been encoded or transmitted. Meyer is silent regarding the actual scope of evolution as he understands it. But the concept of progressive creation vigorously opposed by the BioLogos community seems no less scientific or more miraculous than their proposed alternative. A crude analogy would be firing a pistol and hitting a dime on the far side of the universe. In the BioLogos view, God takes one shot and hits the target, whereas a progressive view would allow for mid-trajectory adjustments. Either is possible. The latter is less demanding. (Of course, my analogy doesn’t account for the additional problem of how information was encoded and transmitted). Or, to look at it another way, a progressive view has God intervening in known scientific processes, whereas the EC view postulates unknown scientific processes for evolution to achieve its intended result without further intervention.

Coming from a different place on the continuum, the Old-Earth Creationist ministry Reasons to Believe has criticized Meyer and the Discovery Institute for failing to name the designer and consequently having little apologetic or evangelistic impact.[6] This objection seems to be resolved decisively in “Return of the God Hypothesis”, as the ultimate theme and purpose of the work is to show that the designer is a personal and benevolent deity who is actively involved in the course of nature and human affairs.

Dr. Meyer is an exemplary writer and scholar and his new volume is a masterwork of apologetics. It is not a light read and is definitely targeted to the scientific and scholarly crowd - Douthat’s “Meritocracy” referenced in the opening. The case should be compelling to agnostics and skeptics who are looking for honest arguments based on sound science and not emotionally predisposed against theism. We should all pray that this approach will lead to more cooperation and less conflict in the arena of creation apologetics.

  1. Stephen C. Meyer. Return of the God Hypothesis: Three scientific discoveries that reveal the mind behind the universe. HarperOne, 2021

  2. For background and further understanding, Biologos has multiple reviews of “Darwin’s Doubt”, as well as a response from Dr. Meyer, here. There are several exchanges between Dr. Meyer and Dr. Deborah Haarsma, current President of BioLogos, in Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design Zondervan, 2017

  3. Francis Collins. The Language of God: a scientist presents evidence for belief. Simon & Schuster, 2006.

  4. John Horgan. The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age. Basic Books, 1996.

  5. Denis O. Lamoureux (2009) Evolutionary Creation: Moving Beyond the Evolution Versus Creation Debate, Christian Higher Education, 9:1, 28-48, DOI: 10.1080/15363750903018231

  6. Four Views, pp. 214-220

Weathering Climate Change, by Dr. Hugh Ross

You all know how this game is played. A well known author comes out with book on a controversial, divisive, politically charged subject. For some, the only thing they want to know is whether it takes their side. Hopefully, many more harbor a genuine desire to understand the issue better. Climate debate has been polarized for quite some time. It is a complicated subject that involves scientific observations, attempts to model future climate, and costly public policy. Hugh Ross’s “Weathering Climate Change” is not a battle manual for political partisans. For everyone else, it’s a gem.

What qualifies Dr. Ross to speak on this topic? He is not, after all, a climatologist. An obvious question warrants an obvious answer. For billions of years, our climate has mostly been driven by the environment of space in which our planet spins – something astrophysicist Ross is particularly well-qualified to evaluate.

The book is broken into roughly three sections. The first four chapters survey the present state of public and scientific opinion on the matter of earth’s climate and how it might be affected by global carbon emissions. Ross shares recent polling data showing how concern over the issue varies markedly from nation to nation, and within nations according to political loyalties. No surprises there.

Ross detachedly summarizes the projections of most climatologists involved in this arena.

The picture they paint is bleak. In addition to food scarcity, floods, and droughts, global warming will likely give rise to disease epidemics and destructive swarms of pests and parasites. Marine and aquatic environments will experience toxic algae blooms, acidification, and deprivation of dissolved oxygen, with consequent drops in fish stocks. (p44)

However, Ross is mindful of the political partisanship and grandstanding attached to this issue. Things don’t have to be this way, Ross hopes. It hinges on whether we’re more interested in addressing the problem than defeating our political opponents:

Do win-win solutions exist? If they exist, can they be implemented quickly enough to avert disastrous consequences and avoid unintended ones? I’m convinced the answer to both questions may well be yes. However, they require interdisciplinary collaboration and international cooperation, and these require a dose of humility and civility that seem increasingly short in supply. (p 50)

The next and most comprehensive section guides the reader into the fascinating realm of paleoclimatology. Here, we are particularly concerned with the conditions and events that led to a series of ice ages and the remarkably stable climate of our current interglacial period. In these chapters, Ross leads us on an adventure back in time. Only then can we fully appreciate the moment in which we live.

Beginning 2.5 million years ago, the earth entered a period of advancing and retreating glaciation known collectively as the ice ages. Since that time, the higher latitudes and elevations have been under ice far more often than not. This strange new era in Earth’s climate history began with an extraordinary cosmic event, the crash of a giant asteroid off the tip of South American known as the Eltanin impact.

Since then, the earth has passed through a series of ice ages, coming and going according to a complex choreography of earth’s orbital eccentricity, the precession of its axis, and the oscillations in the axial tilt collectively known as the Milankovitch cycles. Earth's orbit, in turn, is precisely modulated by gravitational effects from the larger outer planets, particularly Jupiter.

Now you might think ice ages would be hard on human civilization, and you’d be right - if we were in the middle of one! Yet, somehow civilization arose and prospered at the most perfect time possible. Since the end of the last glaciation, we have enjoyed a level of unprecedented climate stability unseen in earlier millennia. Thanks to those ancient ice ages, earth’s soil has been greatly enriched along with an abundant supply of fresh water both above and below the ground. These have enabled us to feed a world population of over seven billion.

This section is rich in detail on the wondrous “coincidences” that have led to our unique period of almost-perfect climate, far too many to summarize here. One of the most fascinating is the very recently discovered Hiawatha impact event in Greenland. This came at just the right point in our climate timeline to stabilize and prolong our current interglacial period, or today there might already be a mile of ice where Toronto now sits.

Most people assume that the greatest long term threat is runaway heating from greenhouse gases. Not so, contends Dr. Ross. Granted, the climate isn’t going to stay like this forever. However, while most scientists and writers focus on the short-term effects of global warming, Dr. Ross takes the long term perspective. Ice ages come and go and come back again. Now, you might think global warming would be great if it delays the next ice age. However, the past record shows that every new glaciation event was preceded by a rise in atmospheric CO2. While the science is still preliminary, there is a growing body of evidence that human-caused CO2 release could actually accelerate the next ice age, possibly on timespans of less than a few hundred years. The tundras of North America and northern Eurasia are cold but extremely arid. Melting of the north polar ice cap should result in increased precipitation in those northern latitudes, leading to a progressive accumulation of snow and ice. By the time the cycle begins, it may be far too late to slow or stop. Much of the evidence for this hypothesis has only been published in the last 2 years.

In Chapter 20, Dr. Ross describes many of the proposals being floated for mitigation of the CO2 induced greenhouse effect, along with their pros and cons. He objectively evaluates many proposed strategies in the categories of geoengineering, resource management, technology, and power production, without shutting down the world economy in the process. Any number of them show great promise. Ross expresses a hope, which I wholly share, that people of good will can lay down their partisan swords and work together to preserve and protect the amazing world God has given us.

This is a delightful and fascinating tour through earth’s recent climate history. Believers will be filled with awe at the marvelous handiwork of the Creator, with each new year of scientific discovery unfolding still greater wonders. Unbelievers and skeptics may at least appreciate how fortunate we are to be living in these times and might be challenged to consider just how many coincidences can one tolerate before one begins to suspect the deck is stacked. Whether or not we agree on matters of faith, we can still work together to protect this glorious planet we all call home.

Brave New World 2.0

June 19, 2019 | book reviews | 6 Comments

Oh, wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world,
That has such people in ’t
                  -(William Shakespeare, The Tempest)

We yearn for a day when all disease is eradicated, human power and intelligence transcend our feeble frames, and death is vanquished.

The second coming of Christ? Or an attainable goal of technology? For some it is the latter.

In Humans 2.0, biochemist Fazale Rana and philosopher-theologian Kenneth Samples offer us a glimpse into the current state of human-enhancing technology with a balanced and thoughtful consideration of the philosophical and moral implications.

It is not a simple subject, and the authors do not oversimply. As they explore the idea of “transhumanism”, they focus on three broad areas of research: human genetic modification, neural enhancement, and lifespan extension. Each area is introduced with clear, authoritative technical explanations and an assessment of the current status. The future ramifications are then considered. In each of these areas, technology offers great hope for better health and relief of suffering. In all three domains, there is no barrier to prevent us passing beyond health to enhancement.

I approached the book somewhat doubtfully, wondering “Is transhumanism a paper tiger?” For example, intelligence is determined by not one gene but thousands, and environment still has a profound impact. Enhanced intelligence seems a long way off and may be impossible. Countless such technical obstacles threaten to nullify the transhumanist vision. I also wondered, “Is anyone really pushing this stuff?” I found both concerns satisfactorily addressed. The authors clearly understand the technological impediments to transhumanist visions, but also demonstrate these conversations are happening. They cite the work of ten influential advocates of transhumanist principles, most of them obscure except for 71-year-old futurist Ray Kurzweil.

Chapter 9, “The Problem with Progress”, I would single out as especially insightful and pertinent. Probably the greatest dangers lie in unintended consequences. Neil Postman warned long ago how technology doesn’t merely serve us but changes how we think.[1] Transhumanism would not simply make us better; it would change who we are. “What we end up saving won’t be us.”[2] Nassim Taleb directed our attention to “Black Swan” events – unpredictable disruptions in the course of history that have a profound lasting impact, either for good or bad.[3] Transhumanism looks like a fertile rookery for black swans.

Bringing their sound theological grounding to bear, the authors do an exemplary job of framing the ethical concerns within a solid Biblical framework in a style that is neither dogmatic nor polemical. Professing Christians across the theological spectrum, other than the most liberal or conservative extremes, should find themselves in comfortable agreement. They are unabashedly and consistently pro-life, but not insensitive to the ramifications of that position.

There was one minor point with which I would take issue. Twice[4] the authors warn that transhumanism can only develop with the resources of capitalism (certainly true), that capitalism leads to unequal outcomes (certainly true), and that the technology would only benefit investors and the wealthy (probably not true). They don’t seem to appreciate that most profits in capitalism come from the mass market, or that Henry Ford, Sam Walton, Ray Kroc, and Steve Jobs did not become fabulously wealthy by catering to the rich. We should be far more concerned with this technology in the hands of totalitarian regimes. Far from extending the benefits of freedom, new technology finds increasing use in the service of repression. With human enhancement we might fear more of the same.

Is this book for everyone? Will it change your life? Probably not. Nor is it an apologetic for the Christian faith; anti-theists will take issue with much of the analysis. Non-scientists may wish to skip the more technical sections (the authors even tell you how!) Nonetheless, Kenneth Samples and Fazale Rana have delivered once again with a well-executed analysis of a timely topic. I recommend it highly to scientists, physicians, policymakers, authors, pastors, and anyone in a position of leadership or influence who will be facing these issues, like it or not.

[1] Neil Postman. Amusing Ourselves to Death. Penguin Books: 1985

[2] Fazale Rana and Kenneth Samples. Humans 2.0: Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Perspectives on Transhumanism. Reasons to Believe: 2019. P. 217

[3] Nasim Taleb. The Black Swan: the Impact of the Highly Improbable. Random House: 2007

[4] Rana and Samples, p. 146, p. 215

The Intelligence Trap: why smart people make dumb mistakes. David Robson, W. W. Norton, 2019

Western society reveres intelligence, or at least pretends to. A leading political figure boasts he's "a very stable genius” - which, presumably, is superior to an unstable one. Yet no one stops to ask, “does it matter?" According to this fresh and fascinating analysis from British science writer David Robson, probably not. In fact, it could be a liability.

Anecdotal examples abound of brilliant people who believe crazy things. Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of the ruthlessly logical Sherlock Holmes, clung to a naive but unshakeable faith in spiritualism and fairies. Nobel prize winner Kary Mullis recounts his abduction by a glowing alien raccoon, when not engaged promoting astrology and AIDS denialism. The name most synonymous with genius - Albert Einstein - saw the hope of mankind in Vladimir Lenin and frittered away the final decades of his life stubbornly rejecting quantum theory. The tendency of Nobel prize winners to go of the rails is so commonplace that science writers coined "Nobel disease" as a term of derision.

Among the higher ranks of intelligentsia, we learn that:

  • College graduates are more likely to believe in ESP and "psychic healing."
  • People with IQ's over 140 are more likely to max out on their credit.
  • High IQ individuals consume more alcohol and are more likely to smoke or take illegal drugs.

By way of explanation, research has found that highly intelligent and educated people are much more confident, and this confidence makes them less likely to doubt their opinions or change their minds. Rather than pursuing truth wherever it may be found, smarter people channel their energy toward arguing and reinforcing their preexisting opinions.

Is there hope for the genius? After reviewing current evidence and theories concerning human cognition, particularly the influence of emotions and effects of overconfidence, Robson identifies a series of empirically validated practices by which one can mature beyond mere intelligence to wisdom. These include:

  • Emotional awareness and regulation - learning to recognize when emotions influence opinions, and how to override them when necessary.
  • Cognitive reflection - the ability to question one's own intuitions and assumptions.
  • Actively open-minded thinking - allowing for other possibilities, and seriously considering opposing viewpoints.
  • Having a growth mindset - never resting on one's credentials but committing to a lifetime of learning and improvement.
  • Intellectual humility - accepting that one's knowledge and abilities are limited.

The third section of the book zeroes in on sound practices of learning and how principles like curiosity, conscientiousness, and emotional intelligence are at least as, if not more, important than intellectual intelligence. Robson relates a number of evidence-based practices shown to facilitate learning - material that should be of keen interest to teachers and learners alike.

A final section extends beyond the individual to apply these principles to group dynamics and the means of avoiding catastrophic group decisions.

This work should be of profound interest to Christians. Without ever quoting the Bible, Robson lays out an elegant model for the Biblical principle of wisdom. His explanations account for why both brilliant believers and brilliant skeptics are prone to overconfidence and equally capable of tremendous self-deceit.

In summary, David Robson has delivered a provocative, entertaining, and timely contribution to the public square. This book could serve as a life manual for those afflicted with a very high IQ. It should be an eye-opener for anyone whose life or profession concerns issues of intelligence. For the average person, it offers two benefits worth the price of the book. First, do not be intimidated by intelligence. Outside their own narrow area of expertise, geniuses are no more trustworthy than anyone else. Second, what matters is not intelligence, but wisdom. And wisdom is within reach of anyone. However, wisdom does not emerge from a vacuum. It matures over time through consistent practice of the principles described within.

Five stars. Buy or borrow it, read it, then live it. You will be much the wiser.

Review of the UK edition. The US edition will be released on August 6, 2019 by WW Norton.




The State of the Evangelical Mind

Reflections on the Past, Prospects for the Future 

Edited by Todd C. Ream, Jerry A. Pattengale, and Christopher J. Devers Intervarsity Press, Dec 11, 2018 Mark Noll's 1994 "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" addressed his perceived lack of intellectual rigor in the American Evangelical community of the early 1990's. It was an interesting and important work, though misleading in singling out Evangelicals. As Noll later conceded, it could more fairly have been titled "The Scandal of the American Mind, as expressed in conservative Protestant Christianity."
This present work consists of an Introduction, six stand-alone essays, and a conclusion representing at least 8 distinctive viewpoints regarding "The State of the Evangelical Mind". An ambitious undertaking for so short a work, considering 1) no one agrees on the definition of Evangelical, and 2) no research methodology or data exists to support objective, quantitative analysis. The analysis is purely subjective.


Introduction: "The state of the Evangelical Mind: tales of prosperity and peril" written by the book's editors. They attempt to define the term and offer a broad overview of general trends in Evangelicalism since Noll's original book.
1. "Evangelical intellectual life: reflections on the past" by Noll recaps trends over the last 24 years focusing on the Reformed Journal, Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals, the Pew Evangelical Scholars Program, and Books & Culture. All are now defunct but had productive runs. He carries us to the present with reference to a handful of Evangelicals in science and academia that warrant Mr. Noll's notice.
2. "The State of the Evangelical Church" by Jo Anne Lyon. She reports on developments such as the March 2018 document from the National Association of Evangelicals, "For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility". If you want to know current trends regarding race and social justice issues in the larger Evangelical community, here's a very brief synopsis. There isn't much reference to anything else.
3. "University Ministry and the Evangelical Mind" by Mahan and Smedley. Two individual essays from individuals long connected with Cru and InterVarsity, large campus ministries with an academic focus discipling future leaders. This is one of the better sections, and most relevant to the actual title. 
4. "John Henry Newman's 'The idea of a university' and Christian Colleges in the twenty-first century" by Timothy Larson. A very good essay on the importance and value of increasing in general knowledge and the neglected value of theology. Toward the end he writes "We must never fudge the evidence or rig the argument in order to save a doctrinal claim from embarrassment. All truth is God's truth."
5. "Contemplative posture and Christ-adapted eyes: teaching and thinking in Christian Seminaries" by Lauren Winner. A perspective on Evangelical seminaries through the eyes of a female Episcopal priest. Heavy on trade jargon ("extraction", "instrumentalism"), she contributes little to the theme of the book. Meh.
6. "The future is catholic: the next scandal for the Evangelical Mind" by James Smith. In a mostly insightful commentary, the author praises current projects like the Center for Christian Thought at Biola. He makes a valid point that with the proliferation of non-denominational churches training standards for leaders has diminished. Calls for restoration of denominational creeds and more intermediaries to communicate work of Evangelical scholars to the laity are good advice. His credibility is diminished by an off topic political rant over Donald Trump and Evangelical support. Only 16% of white Evangelicals voted for Hillary Clinton (down from the 21% who voted for Obama in 2012), yet strangely Smith faults the voters rather than the candidate. To blame it on the voters is insulting. To insinuate it has anything remotely to do with their intelligence is delusional.
Conclusion: "The ongoing challenge of the evangelical mind" by Mark Galli. Galli is Editor in Chief of Christianity Today and this essay summarizes his recent editorial posts on the CT website. Good, balanced thoughtful analysis.


For those with an interest in the subject, this collection of different opinions provides some useful perspective filtered through various biases. It is notable for its failure to mention many prominent figures and ministries actively  or recently involved in Evangelical intellectual life (e.g. Tim Keller, William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, Hugh Ross, or the late R. C. Sproul and Chuck Colson).

Lost in Math

October 30, 2018 | book reviews | No Comments

Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray 
by Sabine Hossenfelder. Basic Books, June 2018. Reviewed by Steven Willing, MD

“Physical laws should have mathematical beauty”. Paul Dirac, Nobel Laureate*
Way back in 1973, the world of theoretical physics reached a dead end. That year marked the last successful prediction of any elemental particles - the top and bottom quarks - which were experimentally verified in 1995 and 1977 respectively. (The Higgs boson, finally detected in 2012, had been predicted in the 1960’s). Since then, there has been no successful prediction that would supersede the standard model.

In the intervening decades, dozens of additional particles have been predicted; not one has been found. String theory evolved and gained wide acceptance, without a shred of experimental verification. Proton decay has been sought but never observed. Dark matter remains dark to our own investigations. The search for a grand unified theory, based on the the holy grail of supersymmetry, has gone nowhere. Eighty years of effort failed to combine general relativity with the standard model. More exotic concepts - the multiverse, wormholes, extra dimensions, mini black holes - have eluded observation and may never be testable. Some ideas are untestable, even in theory.  

Not that we are lacking in achievement. What physicists call the “standard model” - where all matter and forces except for gravity are accounted for by 25 elemental particles and forces - has been wildly successful both in experimental validation and its predictive power. The same is true of quantum theory. There’s only one problem. Physicists hate them both. Nature, it seems, is too unnatural for their tastes. 

The standard model has been denigrated as “ugly and contrived” (Michio Kaku), “ugly and ad hoc” (Stephen Hawking), “ugly and baroque” (Brian Greene), with “the air of unfinished business” (Paul Davies). What troubles them so? Fine-tuning. Too many improbable coincidences. Too hard to understand or explain. Quantum mechanics is “magic”.  Too many arbitrary constants. (In the standard model, there are at least 19 unique constants that cannot be predicted by the model. They can only be determined by scientific measurement).  

The mass of the Higgs boson serves as a case in point.   Its mass depends on the contribution from quantum fluctuations multiplied by the fermion/boson sum. Quantum fluctuations contribute an amount to the mass of the Higgs boson 1015 greater than what is measured. To achieve the measured mass, the quantum fluctuation effect must be perfectly offset by a factor of 10-15, with a precision extending to fourteen digits.   In the eyes of physicists, such fine-tuning is not “natural”. It is an improbable coincidence. Fine-tuning is “a badge of shame” (Lisa Randall), “a sickness” (Howard Baer). It seems to demand an explanation. It is “ugly”. There are other trouble spots of fine tuning: the cosmological constant, the “strong CP problem”, and the great disparity between gravity and other forces (the “hierarchy problem”).

Theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder suggests one reason physicists have hit a wall: in their philosophical quest for “Beauty” the world of theoretical physics has gotten “Lost in Math”. The popular perception of a scientist is that of one driven by cold, hard, objective, unswerving logic. Despite the stereotype, the theoretical physicists interviewed and cited  by Hossenfelder - all leaders in their field - seek, hope for, even insist upon solutions that are aesthetically satisfying.  To them, the ultimate explanation for everything should reveal elegance,  naturalness,  symmetry - all shrouded in mathematical beauty. Yet, there is a danger in this approach. If our present laws of nature were not beautiful, would we ever have found them?  Surely an ugly explanation beats no explanation at all. If a more fundamental theory is not “beautiful”, will we fail to find it? Or even look for it? What if ultimate reality is “ugly"? 

There are other barriers to progress. As high energy experiments from the Large Hadron Collider eliminate from consideration various testable hypotheses, successive hypotheses must assume even higher energy levels which may not be testable, ever: 

If we wanted to directly reach Planckian  energies, we’d need a particle collider about the size of the Milky Way. Or if we wanted to measure a quantum of the gravitational field - a graviton - the detector would have to be the size of Jupiter….Clearly, these aren’t experiments we’ll get funded anytime soon. 

To escape the current predicament, there are calls to abandon the scientific method by eliminating the requirement of experimental verification.  Physicist, philosopher, and string theory proponent Richard Dawid is advocating “non-empirical theory assessment”. With declining prospects of empirical validation, Dawid concludes that “the scientific method must be amended so that hypotheses can be evaluated on purely theoretical grounds.” But “if we can’t test it, is it science?” asks Hossenfelder. 

Hossenfelder is at various times lively, comic, and probing. She quips “Theoretical physicists used to explain what was observed. Now they try to explain why they can’t explain what was not observed…There are many ways to not explain something”.  

In her journey through the rarified world of particle physicists and cosmologists, Hossenfelder voices concern for how hostility to the idea of a God on the part of some harms the public image of science. In the course of their conversation, cosmologist George Ellis recalls his review of a book by Victor Stenger claiming that science disproves the existence of God: 

"I opened this book with great anticipation, waiting to see what was the experimental apparatus that gave the result and what did the data points look like and was it a three-sigma or five-sigma result? Of course, there is no such experiment. These are scientists who haven’t understood basic philosophy.” (God, the Failed Hypothesis, by Victor Stenger, reviewed by George Ellis in Physics World

“Lost in Math” portrays a community of researchers in philosophical crisis. The esteemed physicists interviewed in this book and its impressive author are to be congratulated on their efforts and their honesty. The genuine achievements of science are acknowledged and celebrated, while the limitations of science and of scientists are admitted frankly. Scientists are human, after all. 

Naturalness, beauty, simplicity are aesthetic and philosophical concepts, not scientific ones. While aggressive proponents of secularism accuse believers of irrationality for believing in a God that - they claim - cannot be proven, their rear guard is crumbling. The field of theoretical physics faces a headwall where empirical validation of foundational theories may no longer be possible. More foundational theories may ultimately be embraced on faith alone - so long as the mathematics is beautiful! 

In the world of physics, we find fine-tuning and mystery from the subatomic to the cosmic scale with rapidly diminishing prospects of natural explanation. It is possible we may never see deeper than we are currently able, that we have reached our limit of comprehension regarding the essence of underlying reality. Meanwhile, what can be proven is distressingly improbable. God must be smiling.

*In her biography of Paul Dirac, historian Helge Kragh noted that in the last 49 years of his life Dirac “largely failed to produce physics of lasting value”.