Are his books pretty accessible to an average mind? I’m not a scientist and I detest math but I’m absolutely fascinated by this subject.

N in

I agree completely, Richard. I'm still too read Return of the God Hypothesis.

​@@nikkivenable73 I would say it is. I did study genetics at university and I'm also a computer engineer but my teenagers also read it. Start with watching videos on Signature in the Cell. Then the book will be easier to read. 😊

I think it was written for the lay person. So, you will probably need to have an above average IQ. And if you read books, any books, then you are smarter than 40% of people. If your reading involves classics and plenty non-fiction then you should be good to go!

Why would any one horrified of something that doesn't exist? Sounds more like your personal fears

@@imafeltersnatch7634 Of course we cannot prove a negative, but tell me where it all started before the beginning? You have a supernatural force or aliens. You really have no other choice. Can you be intellectually honest here? You present an ad hominem against Donny, but you pose no cogent response.

Because they don't want to admit the possibility that they might have to submit to the moral judgement of a supreme intelligence.

Yes indeed. Well said

Without education we are in a horrible and deadly danger of taking educated people seriously. - G.K. Chesterton

Why be a Christian? It does not mean any sense. Islam is a much more logical step forward. The numerical aspect of the Quran is pure exctasy for scientific minds.

Great perspective. I came to Christ through apologetics and people like Stephen Meyer exemplify the best. And I love the others you mention. Such great illuminaries who point to the Living Source of Illumination.

Abiogenesis fails

Don't forget The Holy Spirit's work in drawing your friend to The LORD

This special incite into special obscure knowledge is called Gnosticism I think

Not quite, it's just a simple revelation granted to him by the Holy Spirit because of his understanding of calculus. It's not contradicting scripture, it's just helping him see a certain verse from a different perspective in a way that does not violate it's meaning. Gnosticism is: "a prominent heretical movement of the 2nd-century Christian Church, partly of pre-Christian origin. Gnostic doctrine taught that the world was created and ruled by a lesser divinity, the demiurge, and that Christ was an emissary of the remote supreme divine being, esoteric knowledge (gnosis) of whom enabled the redemption of the human spirit."

I do not see Jesus as Creator, but as 2nd Person of The Holy Trinity ( God the Father/Creator, Jesus the Son, and The Holy Spirit ) 3 persons in 1 God.

Can you expand on how you know God is not with us in this Universe?

I don't think a multiverse is evidence against God if it was true. Because if God has no beginning or end and is an infinite being, it makes sense to have an eternal universe or multiverse...

@bob ketter I’ve been thinking about this. Some of these models that Stephen describes others using in an attempt to justify pure materialism sounds so outlandish and nonsensical, yet some of these very same people refuse to acknowledge the possibility of Bible miracles. They seriously entertain the ideas of bouncing universes, multiverses, aliens, etc. but for them a God who created everything is a bridge too far. It’s a gold medal mental gymnastics performance at work.

Irreducible complexity is not a law. Fine tuning is an argument.

When one looks at the results of the famous "Double Slit" Experiment, reality depends on consciousness.

ÓRALE

Only relevant for those that are DESPERATE to be special, desperate to be chosen because they were indoctrinated that if they are NOT the absolute center of attention of a postulated infinitely powerful omniscient being, they are meaningless. Of course such people do not notice that there is a whole "industry" (called religion) that lives in abundance from spreading this story, from telling ONLY through THEM you can get to the goal where all is great forever. And people are conditioned to swallow EVERYthing as soon as the God card is played - and pay. It is hilarious how evidence to whatever is the (currently) best explanation, but one picks the evidence which can be bent somehow to "support" the God you are to believe in. "Strangely", all over the world, that is ALWAYS the God of the religion you believe in. NEVER is the result of this evidence "oops, wrong God. Vishnu fits better. Vishnu from now on." No wonder, because you ONLY stay in your bubble, consume ONLY what is fed to you by those who live from your donations. Of course they tell you that that is all there is to be known, and you swallow it hook, line, sinker, fishing rod, and the fisherman wit his chair. Never would you look outside of your God box and see whether there is not more, more modern knowledge, instead of th conglomerate of strawmen of quotemines, outdated information and malicious misinterpretation that the professional apologists provide for you as excuse so that you can feel good. I know, you will whine why I am so mean to interfere into your bubble of constant mutual affirmation. Because I do NOT go the easy way to only go where I KNOW there is no resistance. I cannot grow with that. I can only harden my OWN position when I reformulated it constantly, when I challenge it with ADVERSE opinions. Good, fact-based adverse opinions. Interestingly, rarely ever one comes even rudimentary back with sound arguments. As if all the people had were the slogans they had been spoonfed, that make them SOOOO sure that when they believe them, they MUST be RIGHT. So you want to have Darwinian Evolution replaced? Darwin is long since outdated, he had e.g. zero clue about genetics. It is Creationists that want to make you believe Evolution is still dependent on the old man. But yes, for your Bible you need a new Evolution, a super-duper-hyper-ultra-evolution, so that in 4000 years since the flood from the few animals on the ark thousands of different species could have formed that spread all over the globe, usually leaving no trace of their way over thousands of kms, over several continents. No genetic decay from just one pair per kind, surely because God intervened in the gene duplication. Noah and his kids (+3 wives), no inbreeding in the next generation when there were only cousins to marry. And from this family - the ONLY family worth surviving, only these pleased God - that spread all over the world, as eskimos in the polar circle and as aboriginees in Australia, not a single trace of their piety in the one true God remained. Makes total sense - for a christian who is trained to think ONLY in the patterns he is told to and not even perceive there might be another way. Sad.

What can ID do that the _scientific_ theory of evolution can’t?

No it doesn't

I am asking this question not because I am an Atheist but just to clarify why they were?

bBLIND FAITH IIS the essence of current origins .

But there isn't compelling scientific evidence. Blind Faith is the only thing that points to a god.