The Case for a Creator - Lee Strobel [171]
14. John Leslie, Universes (New York: Routledge, 1989), 198.
15. Robert M. Augros and George N. Stanciu, The New Story of Science, 70.
16. Robin Collins, “A Scientific Argument for the Existence of God: The Fine-Tuning Design Argument,” in Michael J. Murray, editor, Reason for the Hope Within (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999), 48.
17. Paul Davies, The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature’s Creative Ability to Order the Universe (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1988), 203.
18. Collins (and Gingerich in his earlier quote) was referring to a well-known comment by Sir Fred Hoyle: “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” Fred Hoyle, “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections,” Engineering & Science (November 1981).
19. The relative strength of the four forces in nature—gravity, electromagnetism, the weak force, and the strong nuclear force—is typically specified by a widely used dimensionless measure, which can roughly be thought of as the relative strengths of the respective forces between two protons in a nucleus. See: John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), 293–95.
20. Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe (New York: Basic, 2000), 30.
21. Stephen C. Meyer, “Evidence for Design in Physics and Biology” in Michael J. Behe, William A. Dembski, and Stephen C. Meyer, editors, Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2000), 60.
22. Steven Weinberg, “A Designer Universe?” New York Review of Books (October 21, 1999).
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid.
25. Roger Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind (New York: Oxford, 1989), 344, quoted in Stephen C. Meyer, “Evidence for Design in Physics and Biology” in Michael J. Behe, William A. Dembski, and Stephen C. Meyer, editors, Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe, 61.
26. Brad Lemley, “Why Is There Life?” Discover (November 2002) emphasis added.
27. Ibid. Also see Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe.
28. Quoted in Larry Witham, By Design (San Francisco: Encounter, 2003), 55.
29. Bill Bryson, A Short History of Nearly Everything, 16.
30. Brad Lemley, “Why Is There Life?”
31. Ibid.
32. Clifford Longley, “Focusing on Theism,” London Times (January 21, 1989).
33. Steven Weinberg, “A Designer Universe?”
34. Michael J. Behe, William A. Dembski, and Stephen C. Meyer, Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe, 104, referencing Clifford Longley, “Focusing on Theism.”
35. Paul Davies offers this definition of metaphysics: “In Greek philosophy, the term ‘metaphysics’ originally meant ‘that which comes after physics.’ It refers to the fact that Aristotle’s metaphysics was found, untitled, placed after his treatise on physics. But metaphysics soon came to mean those topics that lie beyond physics (we would today say beyond science) and yet may have a bearing on the nature of scientific inquiry. So metaphysics means the study of topics about physics (or science generally), as opposed to the scientific subject itself. Traditional metaphysical problems have included the origin, nature, and purpose of the universe, how the world of appearances presented to our senses relates to its underlying ‘reality’ and order, the relationship between mind and matter, and the existence of free will. Clearly science is deeply involved in such issues, but empirical science alone may not be able to answer them, or any ‘meaning-of-life’ questions.” (Paul Davies, The Mind of God, 31.)
36. Lee Strobel, The Case for Faith, 78, 79.
37. John Polkinghorne, Serious Talk: Science and Religion in Dialogue (London: Trinity Press International, 1995), 6.
38. John Polkinghorne, Science and Theology (Minneapolis: