Some in the established scientific community have become prejudicial. An example might be: 93% of respondents to a survey of the National Academy of Sciences, did not believe in a personal god
This prejudice is evident in the words of many notable scientist, for example: Properly read, the bible is the most portent force for atheism, ever conceived (Isaac Asimov.) Science is almost totally incompatible with religion (Peter Atkins.) I want to put on the table, not why 85% of the members of the National Academy of Science reject God, I want to know why 15% of the National Academy don"t Neil de Grasse Tyson. A PEW survey of scientific workers, found approximately thirty five percent of the respondents, expressed a disbelief in God. This is antithetical to conventional wisdom. In the past there was, generally, a willingness to listen to all reasoned opinions. But, "I want to know why 15% of the National Academy don't"(reject God,) sounds like a threat directed at the 15%.
Prior to Charles Darwin, there was some discord with religion or disbelief in God. This was evident in the French revolution and the age of reason. Charles Darwin gave voice to scientific skepticism and it became more socially acceptable advocate skepticism. That voice was and is suspect. Sigmund Freud, one of the founding fathers of psychology, entombed, "a healthy mental state is not possible with any belief in God." This is a science that has no hard data and no reproducible results. Karl Marx gave voice to the Communist Manifesto. This creed fully understands complete loyalty to the party is not possible with any belief in God. The science of archaeology, with many frauds and opinions attempts to disprove the bible and in the past evolutionary biology defamed humans as insignificant offspring of monkeys. Cosmologist, with their Big Bang, thinking that an incredulous creation of the universe could be conjured with impossibilities, frauds, moving goalposts and livid imaginations, are exasperatedly wrong. This subset of the scientific effort continues with authors, looking for notoriety with stories of outer space ghoul-like entities, ancient astronauts and smarter-than-human extraterrestrials. Thus, stroking doubt and fear with the aliens are coming, the aliens are coming, ad nauseaum.
This book uses proscribed knowledge and logic to instill some clarity to the understanding; there is a God. Ultimately, there is no hiding the exquisitely designed universe, with almost no tolerance for error. One percent deviation in any of the forces, constants or energies in this universe would equate with a dead cinder of a universe. This is the anthropic universe. The universe atheist and agnostics have tremendous difficulties with. The most scientific non-believers can logically say is; it is a finely tuned universe. It is, anthropic because humankind is the final product. To some non-believers, there are alternatives to the anthropic universe; the Big Bang fallacy, the steady state theory, the multiple universe theory (multiverse) or the universe as a hologram, a projection generated by an advanced alien race. Any theory is preferable to the obvious, a universe by design.
This book uses scientific epigrams to disparage some scientific understandings. Allow two examples; Everybody, who has studied Einstein's Relativity know Special Relativity did away with the Aether. But, in a 1920 presentation, Einstein sad, "Relativity without the Aether is unthinkable." Einstein said the speed of light (c) is a constant and many believe c is a constant. After thinking about it, Einstein said c is different in different locations.
There is no scientific theory that leads from old earth, to evolution, to the Big Bang and ultimately to the Anthropic Universe. We exist; therefore, it is clear this universe was designed for humankind.
