The Sean McDowell Show - Science Turning Back to God!

Episode Date: January 20, 2026

Are we witnessing a scientific revolution that challenges materialism and points to God? According to French thinker Michel Yves Bollore, the answer is a resound YES. What is the evidence for such a revolution? At the beginning of the 20th century, many believed science would eventually replace the need for God. But today, modern discoveries in cosmology, physics, and origin-of-life studies point to a Cosmic Designer. We discuss the evidence in this episode and respond to common objections. READ: God, the Science, the Evidence by Michel-Yves Bollore & Olivier Bonnassies (https://amzn.to/4sY22T8) *Get a MASTERS IN APOLOGETICS or SCIENCE AND RELIGION at BIOLA (https://bit.ly/3LdNqKf) *USE Discount Code [smdcertdisc] for 25% off the BIOLA APOLOGETICS CERTIFICATE program (https://bit.ly/3AzfPFM) *See our fully online UNDERGRAD DEGREE in Bible, Theology, and Apologetics: (https://bit.ly/448STKK) FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA: Twitter: https://x.com/Sean_McDowell TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@sean_mcdowell?lang=en Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/seanmcdowell/ Website: https://seanmcdowell.org Discover more Christian podcasts at lifeaudio.com and inquire about advertising opportunities at lifeaudio.com/contact-us.

For over 30 years, Point of Grace has shared music, faith, and friendship with listeners across the country. Now Denise, Lee, and Shelley are inviting you into their circle. Welcome to Circle of Friends. The podcast is Point of Grace. Each week they're talking real life, current events, stories of true friendship, wisdom from God's word, and all their favorite things. If you're looking for a little company, a few laughs, and a lot of Jesus to hold it together. Circle of Friends. The podcast is waiting for you.

Subscribe now wherever you listen or watch podcasts. And Circle Up with Point of Grace. Life Audio Are we witnessing a scientific revolution that challenges materialism and points to God? The universe cannot come from nothing. So if God does not exist, we are nothing. We haven't been here forever, hence it must have a beginning, and that challenges materialism. Life of materialist is very difficult.

It's very difficult. They want to believe that there is not one universe. There is many universe, multiverse, and people are fed up of that. Are we witnessing a scientific revolution that challenges materialism and points to God? Our guest today, Michel Ive Bolare, is a French computer engineer and intellectual who is collaborating with a team of 20 high-level intellectual specialists and scientists to document what he calls the Great Reversal, in which science has now become God's ally rather than God's adversary. He's co-written a book that has quite remarkably sold more than

400,000 copies. The title is God, the Science, The Evidence. Michelle, thanks for coming on. Thank you very much, Sean. It's a pleasure. Yeah, so let's jump right in. There are some similar books written by American scholars that you're familiar, such as The Return of the God Hypothesis by Stephen Meyer. Is your book? the first of its kind in French, and how has it been received? Our book has been very well received, as you mentioned. The book has sold more than 450,000 copies today, which is for a book about the evidence of God,

of the existence of God, which is really a huge number. And we have been quite surprised, I must say, and this proves that there is a real hunger of people to know and to hear about evidence of the existence of God. So that was really a real joy for us. What we want to say first thing is that our book is for the general public. It's a little bit different from some of the books that you have mentioned. Our book is written for anybody in my family,

anybody ordinary people like you and me for people in our family. families. The families are today divided because in average in Europe, 50% of the population believe in God and 50% do not believe in God. So it's half and half. And this division is going through inside the families itself. So families are, there is a lot of anxiety and people want to know more. So we thought we had to do a book which is for the general public. So our book is easy to read, though it's perfectly exact. And as you mentioned, we have wrote our book with the help of 25 to 30 very important experts, including some Nobel Prize. So this book is a little bit different of the one you mentioned of Steve Meyer. I love this book very much.

The written of God hypothesis is very good. But it's more intellectual. trolls than our book. And our book is not only general public, but it is also not only cosmology or biology. We have also made an investigation in philosophy, morality and history. And this is quite important, I think, because if you are thinking of a normal person who is just wondering, what should I believe in? God or not God? And really asking himself, it's this question. It's not only science. We want, if God exists, all the domains must go in the same direction.

We cannot imagine, for example, that science would go one way and philosophy would go another way. So we have explored not only science, but we have one third of the book, which is a little bit of philosophy, but some very amusing, thrilling chapters about history, about morality, which I think is very important. For example, if God does not exist, then everything is permitted. Are we ready to accept that?

So it's a book which is more general, I would say, that's the one you mentioned. That's totally fair. In some ways, we could do multiple interviews on the different sections of the book, the argument you make kind of historically for the Judeo-Christian faith, the philosophical argument you make, we're going to focus on kind of the first big chunk of the book, The Scientific Revolution. But I have one more question for you before we jump into the scientific evidence. And I would second that it's very readable. It's a big book.

I want people to see the size of it. It's not a small book, but it's readable. It's doable. I've written popular apologetics books, and I read this. I thought people could definitely read it and work it through without having a master's degree in philosophy, science, or history. That's for sure. But I'm really curious about your personal journey to faith.

Of course, you've worked with 25 scholars. You have a co-author on this. But did the scientific or historical or philosophical evidence play a role in your journey to faith? Why do you personally believe in God? So we are two co-authors of the book with two different paths. Personally, there is nothing special, I would say, in my life because I am born in a Christian family. And we were five children and I have been educated in the Christian faith.

So for me, there has never been any change of direction in my life. The only thing I would say is when I became, for example, an engineer, I thought that if I was a Christian, it would be very important that my faith should be supported and should be coherent with what I was learning, which was science. So I had always in mind, even when I was 20 or 30, that one day I should dig this question. More interesting, I think, is the past of my co-author. Olivier Bonacieux he is a mathematician,

he has made the best university in France for mathematics, polytechnic, and when he was 20, he was an... atheist. And all his family was an atheist. So one day he read a book about the reason to believe in God and he thought it would be for fun that was just a little bit ridiculous. But still he read the book and he said, wow, it's very serious. So he read several books and reading books he has changed his mind when he was perhaps 25 or something like that. And then for the throwing him, all his family converted also to Christianity. So it's very interesting to see that in the path of Olivier,

Olivier Bonacie, my co-author, just by, if I may say, the path of reason. Reason has been changing his decision to become a believer. So that's very interesting. That's totally interesting. Two, the main roles of apologetics are to strengthen believers like your, to find out, is my faith reasonable and rational? Does it actually describe reality? And to also draw non-believers with open hearts and open minds to consider whether or not there is a God. And I think that's unique that the two of you came together in writing this and researching this book.

Now, let's start with the background of what makes this revolution you talk about so surprising. At the dawn of the 20th century, what was the start? scientific consensus about the existence of God? And how did most scientists, at least in the West, view the relationship between science and religion? Yes, you know, at the beginning of the 20th century, it was a triumph for the materialists, for the Athesians. Because they had, behind them, they had four centuries, four centuries of plenty of discoveries

which all of them seem to say, we don't need God to explain the world. That was the situation. If you think starting with, of course, Copernicus and Galileo, the idea that the earth was at the center of the universe was destroyed. The idea that the sun was revolving about this around the earth was also destroyed. and then after the idea that the Earth was 6,000 years old, was destroyed by Bufo.

And so the Earth was very old, in fact. And then after you had discoveries of Lamarck and Darwin, so it was possible to explain life and man without using God, you know, and it was terrible because people like Laplace, there is a funny story of the mathematics, the French mathematician Laplace with Napoleon. And Laplace comes to visit Napoleon, and he shows to him the mathematical equation of the solar system,

and he says, here are how it works. And Napoleon has a look to the equation, and he says, perhaps it's true, perhaps it's a legend, but more or less it's important, it's interesting. So Napoleon would have said, but where is God in this equation? And then Laplace said, sire, I don't need God as an hypothesis. So all this, the summary of the modern spirit was there.

We don't need God to explain the world. So after Lamarck and Darwin, there were Freud and Marx. And not only it was not necessary to have God to explain the world. But if I may say much worse, Freud and Darwin said, not on with we don't need God, but in addition, God is a poison for humanity. Because it's because of the idea of God that people are poor. It's because the idea of church and religion that we are not free. Let's get rid of the idea of God.

So we were in almost 1900. And then all Europe, there were a revolution, eschaist revolution. If you think of Russia in 1917, with Lenin, in Italy, with Mussolini in the 20s, with Hitler in the 30s, in Germany, in Spain, in 1936, and then in China with Mao Tseum. So there is a triumph of materialism in the beginning of the 20th century. This is the background, really, the big picture of science, philosophy, and political ideas. and if we go back to the beginning of this 20th century, all scientists and philosophers thought that science would always continue in the same direction,

that more and more we would say God doesn't exist, we don't need God to explain. And what happened was so surprising because what happened and we want to count in our book, to relate in our book, is just right the opposite. it. Discoveries, one after the others, shows that we cannot avoid. We need God to explain the world, the universe. It's not possible anymore to explain the universe without the creator

God. So the first, really the first discovery was something which people do not know, and so it's very simple, which is thermodynamic. Thermodynamics was a science which is very simple, but a complete revolution. Thermodynamics says that everything wears out. Nothing lasts forever. Nothing lasts forever. Which means, for example, we know that our sun will, it's just a tank of hydrogen. It's like a tank of gasoline.

In 5 billion years, this tank will be empty, and the sun will be a shutdown complete, will be dead. And after the sun, all the other stars also will end. And all the universe will become very cold, very dark, and extremely low density, let's say almost empty. And what we know by logic is that everything which ends has necessarily a beginning. So this is where was the first evidence that a crudence, that a crudence.

that Creator God was necessary because our universe will have an end. Everything which has an end has a beginning and which everything which has a beginning as a cause. That was the Greek philosopher Parmenides, 2,500 years ago, who said this very important

principle, which is a principle of Parmenides, from nothing, nothing can come. From nothing, nothing. In Latin, it is ex-neilo-Neil. Ex-Nilo-Neil fit. So what do that mean? That means that the universe cannot come from nothing. So if God does not exist, our universe is necessarily eternal. This is the face of materialists. All 100% of materialists, they have to believe that our universe is eternal. need to believe it in a way or another. But there is no materialist who say that our universe has a beginning. So now the question of the beginning of the universe has become a scientific

question. And during the 20th century, science was able to collect six evidence, six different evidence, that our universe cannot be eternal. So that was really the very beginning of if I may say the problem for materialists. It's a big stone that they have in their shoes. You know, it's like a horn in their back. So how do they cope with that today? Well, they say... Can I jump in here?

Let me jump in here really fast before we get to the response of the materialist. Because I want you to lay out more of the evidence and then we'll get to the response to it. Your description of what happened at the turn of the time, 20th century is so helpful and it's brilliant. In the book, you call it the great reversal. So I want to make sure that our viewers and listeners don't miss. They were talking about the dawn of the 20th century, which now some people might feel like is so long ago. Health insurance rates in America are surging, leaving millions without affordable options,

but Christians don't need to waste money on a broken system. Christian healthcare ministries is an alternative to health insurance at half the cost. With CHM, fellow believers contribute monthly to help pay each other's medical bills while lifting one another up in prayer. It's financial and spiritual support when you need it most. Join CHM today by visiting CHministries.org slash wellness. That's chmistries.org slash wellness. But my father's 86 years old. My grandfather was born in 1898. So when my grandfather was born, because of the work and writings and shifts in science, going back like you said, Comperticus and Galileo and Marx and Freud and Darwin, the assumption was that materialism was true or could at least adequately explain the universe.

And in the 21st century, we would advance even further beyond that and replace any need for God. this wasn't even something according to your book people were debating they just assumed it so the discoveries you're talking about such as the thermal death of the universe is so surprising because people weren't looking for it they weren't expecting it they weren't contesting it and then this evidence kind of bubbles up so to speak challenges this notion now we're going to get to this in a little bit so my favorite part of your book is the drama about what it calls cost people to speak up for the science. I had no idea. This part read like a novel in your book. But let's take a minute and talk about the role that Einstein played in this. So you talked about the thermal death of the universe. And in many ways, if I could tell me if you would be okay with this just for kind of non-specialists

in terms of what we mean by the second law thermodynamics. And then we'll come to Einstein. If I take a mug that's hot of coffee, eventually over time, It's going to reach the same equilibrium or temperature of the environment of which it's in. So over time, there will be a heat death and there'll be an equilibrium in the universe where everything will be the same temperature. So the fact that there's this equilibrium right now tells us, wait a minute, we haven't been here forever.

There was a beginning to the universe. So it's going to have a thermal death, hence it must have a beginning, and that challenges materialism. Before we get to Einstein, is that a fair way of making that point? Yes, yes, it's a fair way. I think that there is another analogy, which is easy to understand for the general audience, for the general public, it's a chimney. When you have a fire in your chimney and you are sitting in front of the fire in a chimney, you can observe, if you stay there for one hour,

that the fire and the quantity of wood is disappearing and the number of laws is disappearing. So you can say this fire will be dead in two hours' time from now, for example. That's a conclusion which is quite clear. But there is another conclusion you can draw is that if this fire is not yet extinguished, is not yet dead, there was somebody in the house two or three hours ago who started the fire. It's very important because if there was nobody to start the fire, if the fire had been lighted

in the eternity, then it would be dead a long time ago also. So a fire which is still there and extinguishing and wearing out, it needs that there is someone to start the fire. And the universe is exactly like the fire in the chimney. We see our universe. We can see that our universe is there. We can see that the sun is burning. But if the sun is burning and not yet dead,

it is because somebody has lighted it some billion years ago. So that's an analogy. And so this thermal death was so terrible that several scientists refused to believe it. And this was the case of a Nobel Prize, Arnius, who refused completely. He was a Nobel Prize in chemistry. And he said, I refuse to believe in it. And we have the reference in the book. But also Einstein was really troubled by this.

Finally, Einstein said the second principle of thermodynamic is one of the most important of all science. So, since the analogies are very important for us for the general public to understand what is our universe. That's a great analogy, and it makes two points. It makes, number one, that if the fire is still burning, it hasn't been burning for eternity, so the universe hasn't always been here. But then second raises the question, where did it come?

come from? How did it start? And it points towards a certain kind of beginning and cause outside of the universe to have the power to start this. Now we're seemingly shifting into the supernatural, which is why so many scientists resisted this. Now, you give a number of evidences in your book from the beginning of the universe. One of them is what we've been talking about, the thermal death of the universe. Another one is Big Bang cosmology and its discovery, which also points towards the universe having a beginning. I'd love to hear from you what role Einstein played in this, why he resisted the conclusions of general relativity,

and then why he kind of finally came along and relented that the universe really is expanding. Yes, it's a part of the story which is really very exciting. In fact, when Einstein discovered, invented, discovered, discovered, the relativity, he arranged all the mathematical equations to have a universe which was stable. But it was arranged, it was humanly arranged, and some Russian mathematician and physicist wrote him, wrote to him and say, you're wrong. That's not the way it works. The universe is not stable, it is expanding. And Einstein resisted that

because he understood very well that he would look if the universe would look like too much to the Bible. So it was really upsetting for so many scientists. Because if the universe is expanding, you know, it's like a

Schwingham bubble. So, you know, if you see a young boy blowing into a bubble of twingham, there is a beginning and there is the end. The end we know. The end is boom. But at the beginning, there is also a beginning. So when something is unstable and it's expanding,

so what was before and how will it be in the future? And the expansion of the universe came to exactly the same conclusion than the thermal death. And it's very funny because it's a different science. It's completely independent. It's different. But the conclusion was the same. So the conclusion were that there would have been,

there is a necessity for a beginning and there is a necessity for the end. And many scientists, we were mentioning that, many scientists in Russia, mostly and in Germany, in the 30s, in the 1930s, have been killed, shot, put into camps in prison, jail, tortured because they were just affirming, they were saying that the universe had a beginning and an end. So we have a special chapter. We have called this chapter the noir thriller of the Big Bang, and there is a lot of, it's terrible, poor guys,

young scientists, Russian and German, they had no money, they had no political importance, they had no role, know, they had nothing, they were nobody. And Hitler and Stalin understood very well the danger of people like that. This is why both make them

kill so many. Some have escaped. Einstein escaped, a few other escaped in the United States also. But I think that a big part probably of all the physicists of the 30s have been killed during Stalin because of the

expansion of the universe. It's a terrible story, but it is an in their indirect proof of the existence of God, because Stalin and Hitler had understood the danger, the danger of this theory of the expansion of the universe. That part of the book honestly read like a spy thriller to me. I've studied the science for a long time, but I was not aware of the level of persecution in both Germany under the Nazis

and under in Russia and beyond. under the Marxists around the same time in the 20th century, you wrote this, she said, the materialists would not have unleashed such extreme violence upon scientists who theorized the expansion of the universe. And the Big Bang, had they not been convinced that these theories made a strong case for the existence of God. Now, these are stories.

You go into depth in the book, of people just being brutalized, shot in front of their families, people being tortured, thrown in prison for years and silenced. And it seemed like there was a dozen or two plus of scholars that were really mistreated this way. And I want to make sure we're clear. They weren't just mistreated because of some political ideas they had. They weren't mistreated just because the communist and notchi regimes want to have control of the university. You can show through the scholarship itself that there's an awareness of the cosmological.

they're arguing for, and it's theological implications that led to a lot, if not most, of their persecution. Is that true? Yes, it's true. And I want to jump on one point you have said. You were not aware of that. But you are not alone not to be aware of that. And there is a reason for that. It is still today politically incorrect to mention and to talk or to return. count the history of the persecution of the scientists in Russia and Germany. It is still dangerous. So what we have done is a very original work. We have been a very friend with some Russian mathematician.

They were knowing all the stories. They gave us many of these stories. And we are happy to have that. And I'm sure that as today, nobody has offered this story nowhere and nowhere because even 100 years after the story, it was in the 1930, so it's almost 100 years, 100 years after the story, still, it still perhaps dangerous to talk of then, perhaps at least it is incorrect. So this is very strange. It is strange, but it also flips on its head, kind of the two thesis behind your book,

at least in the science section is number one that the science is pointing towards intelligence it's pointing towards a mind and a supernatural origin but second science is not at odds with faith when properly understood and so this section which again i have never heard this before it was fascinating it was my favorite chapter although of course it's disturbing on many levels it was so intriguing i couldn't put it down i was telling my wife i was like you realize some of the stuff that happened here like it just made sense to me but we so often hear about the stories of Galileo

and other scientists that were told were persecuted by the church and I'm not going to say the church as always handled things correctly but you bring in far more modern times that it was a materialist worldview that is causing far more of the reluctance and slowing down and resistance

of science because of its beliefs, then arguably religion ever has, if you're right about this. Would you make that case and say that's true? Of course. Of course. It's nothing because Galileo, it happened nothing to Galileo. He was living in the residence of the Pope. He was a very good friend of the Pope.

He was first. He was a Christian. He was a Catholic. So nobody has never been shot or tortured like they were by Stalin and I need that. Of course. And of course, not all atheists are Marxists, not all materialists are socialist. But at the root of Marxism and also driven by Nazism was this commitment to a materialist worldview. And this chapter showing how these, some of these, I mean, scientists were incredibly brave.

I'm reading this chapter going, wow, if I was in their position, would I be willing to risk my life and my family and my career for a scientific finding. I mean, it really made me ask those questions. Now, we're going to shift in a little bit to the fine-tuning, but maybe give us one example of Big Bang cosmology. You walk through how it's accepted. You give the evidence for it. People can read the book if they want to, but maybe give us, so two questions. Why does Big Bang cosmology, what is it about it that points towards the universe have at a beginning? And can you give us one example of a scientific attempt to explain away the Big Bang that failed to meet the evidence? Well, of course, the Big Bang, it's a popular name which has been given by,

which has been given by an atheist. In fact, it was a cosmologist Fred Oil. Americans have a big health care problem. Over 100 million U.S. citizens can medical debt. But that's not the whole story. With health insurance, your out-of-pocket and monthly costs are way too high. You get surprise bills, denied claims, and poor customer service. That's a serious burden. As Christians, we don't have to pay for a broken system. Christian Healthcare Ministries is an alternative to health insurance at half the cost. You can enroll at any time and join a proven faith-based solution that's both reliable and a full. CHM isn't just help, it's financial and spiritual support when you need it most.

Families across the country count on CHM to step in during their hardest moments. And it works. Stand up to health insurance with a low-cost biblical solution. Join CHM today by visiting CHministries.org slash wellness. That's CHministries.org slash wellness. who was a terrible atheist and he wanted to discredit to mock George Lemaître, who was the first at the origin of the Big Bang. So he said just to have fun of him, this is the man of the Big Bang.

But the word was very, was so well chosen that now everybody talks of the Big Bang. It's very interesting to know that Fred Oil, we were the opponent or the opponent, to George Remet. At the end, he converted to the existence of God when he has discovered the fine-tuning of the universe. So I will tell you a word of that. But 30 years after,

Frage Oil said, okay, I have understood, now I believe in God. So it was in the 60th, 30 years after. So the expansion, the expansion of the universe is another

evidence for, a beginning of the universe. Perhaps the big bang, which has happened 14 billion years ago, was not the first big bank. Perhaps there has been a few before, and perhaps there has been some big crunch and big bang, etc. But very recently, I will jump in the 21st century, very recently, 20 years ago in 2003, three American scientists, very important, Gutt, Baud and Vilenkin,

Guttborg and Vilenkin, have discovered that if the Big Bang that we know was not the first Big Bang, it's possible there had been a few Big Bangs before, but it's not possible to believe that there has been an infinite theory of Big Bang. So it doesn't matter to know is the big bong that we know

14 billion years was the first one or was the number 2 or 3 or 4 it was a limited series which means that if the big bong of our universe was not the first big bomb there has been necessarily a first big bomb

and we come back like the thermal death we come back at the same place if there is an absolute big edict then we need a cause if we want to keep in our you know in our you know, in what we call our logic.

So we need a cause. But that cause must be different of the universe itself. So of course, we are not going to discuss that now, but of course the obvious cause we can imagine, a cause which can create a universe,

of course we call it God. So that was the expansion of the universe was the second, if I may say, the second very important discovery showing that our universe at the beginning. But there had been more discovery showing that God was necessary. So there is, I don't know if you want to talk of that now, it's a fine tuning, which is...

Oh, I do. Let me jump in here and just clarify the point you made. This is so important. And then you're going exactly where I want to go with fine tuning. So Big Bang cosmology, like the second law thermodynamics, indicates that the universe has a beginning. and it's not eternal. And the 20th century in many ways, this is a point that William Lane Craig

and others have made, is kind of the story of a series of attempts to explain a way the beginning of the universe with different scientific models, and all of those have shown to not account for the data and to fail for a variety of reasons. One of them that you're pointing out, and this is really important

because this comes up a lot in the conversations, is that maybe there's this the big bang is not an absolute beginning but there's other big bangs before it and it goes back in time hence we don't have a creation moment so to speak and your argument is that the model by board gooth and valen who get talked about many times in these conversations would actually argue if even if there's a series of bangs going back there still needs to be an absolute beginning to the universe. Yes, definitely. Good. Okay, this is really important. But you know, this is very recent. It's 20 years ago.

In the history, in the history of ideas, what is 20 years? So it's yesterday. You know, so now we have the proof with Bort, Gutt and Velenkin. We have the scientific proof that there cannot be an infinite series of Big Bang. It's major. It's a major discovery. It's fantastic. So, really now, the materialists, they have a big problem.

They know they have a problem. So this is why they want to believe that there is not one universe. There is many universes. So perhaps our universe and at the beginning, but there are many universes, multiverse. So this is the way they try to escape that. But I must say it's very, It's very difficult today.

The life of materialist is very difficult. It's very difficult. And they have many other problems to solve. There have many other problems. So the third problem, if we can start with it now, it is this fantastic story, fantastic story of the fine tuning of the universe. So now we have to make some simple explanation for the fine tuning of the universe because,

Our universe is built on 30 numbers, more or less, 25, 30 numbers. Numbers which are pure numbers. For example, we know the speed of the light, and the speed of the light is 300,000 kilometers per second. So we could just say, wow, why not more or why not less? and what would happen if the speed of light was a little more or less. And what is fantastic is now we can answer to that if the speed of light was a little faster or a little slower,

our universe would not exist at all. And I will give you something which is much more amazing. We are talking of the expansion of the universe, starting from a very small to very big. there is a speed of expansion. You know, it's boom. It's speed of expansion. And we know the speed of expansion

of the universe at the very beginning. We know all the decimals. We know all the decimals, including the 15th decimals. You imagine 15 decimals. Amazing. And we can know today with our computers and the mathematical model.

We know that if the 15th decimel was one more, or one less one point more or one point less if it was one point more the speed of the universe would be too fast

and there would be no planet and no stars there would be a dilution and if the speed was one less the universe would not exist because there would be a big crudge so it's like

the universe is like a huge plane when it takes off you have to turn you know, got to turn to the 15th decimal of the speed of the expansion. And this is true, not only for the speed of expansion of the universe, but for all the other numbers. So I want to come back to that Fred Oil

was not convinced. Fred Oil was a noble trice. He was a very important man between 1930 and 1960. In the 1930s, he was the main opponent to Le Maitre and to all these guys for the expansion of the universe and the Big Bang. He was a main opponent. He was a theory atheist. And when he discovered himself, he participated to the fine tuning.

He thought it's so crazy. The fine tuning of the universe is so crazy. And one day in a conference room, he said, I'm going to sit on the side of those who are believing in the existence of God, because now I've changed my mind. So it changed mind not with the expansion of the universe, but with the fine tuning of the universe. So this is with the fine tuning is extremely, it's incredible.

So to be really today, materialism has become an irrational belief, in fact. It's irrational. People will continue to have scientists, materialism because for them, they see it as a condition of freedom. For many, the idea of God is assimilated or is considered like a limitation of their freedom. To be free in their mind is to have no God, no master, no God. So if I accept God, then I have, I know. If God exists, I must not kill, I must not steal, I must not cheat, I must not lie.

So it's a limitation of my freedom. And for others, also God would be a judge. Ah, you have done wrong, you know. So many people, they don't want God because they don't want limitation of their freedom and they don't want a judgment. So many people, they would prefer to believe in something which is quite irrational than to accept the idea of God. So this is why it will, though we have to.

so many evidence today. This is why probably it will continue in the same way as in the past. We have more or less a large number still of scientists who are materialists, probably half, 50%. And people are not going to change, at least in the short term, because, you know, it's a passionate question. It's not only a scientific question, the existence of God. It is a passionate question. It definitely is it. It's a personal existential question. It's not one we can just explore in the realm of science and move on. It has implications for the way we live.

Including a story of Fred O'Coyle like you do in the book, I thought was so interesting because I think you said it was in 1949. He coined the term Big Bang to indicate the universe had a beginning. And then he's famous for saying when he comes to the fine-tuning years later, it's almost as if someone was monkeying with physics. It's as if there's a mind behind this and an intention behind this and a purpose behind this is what he argued. Now, I want to explain why you think fine-tuning in particular is such a challenge for materialism and points towards God, but I do want to draw out for people when we come to the beginning of the universe,

if time, space, and matter begin to exist, then we need a cause that's not physical, a cause that's beginningless, a cause that's outside of space, and timeless at least at the beginning of the universe, and arguably personal, because immaterial things like numbers or laws of logic don't have causal power,

really smart and really powerful. So the beginning of the universe, it seems very plausibly points towards God, and people know it and they see it when they reflect upon it. Why do you think fine-tuning points back on materialism and points towards God? So fine-tuning, of course, points towards the necessity of a creator of God, because when you see that the 30 numbers on which our universe is built, these 30 numbers are so fine-tune, you know,

It's impossible. It's like a lottery. It's impossible to imagine that we are so lucky. So what is the position today of the materialist? How do they say, what can they answer? So as we all know, the answer of the materialist to the fine-tuning is the multiverse. They prefer to believe that they are billions, billions of universe. Billions of universe, which are all different with different numbers, with different tuning, which are not so fine tuning. So probably all the other universe, there is no life. There is no planet like Earth.

And we are the lucky guys. We are in the good universe. But if there is or not other universe, nobody will never know because it's impossible to know. So multiverse is something we should call like science fiction. You know, there is no arguments. We just don't know. But it's for them, it's a possibility to get out of the trap.

You know, there is a trap. Our universe is fine tuned. Our universe has a beginning. And if you are logical, you must say, behind the universe, there is an almighty mind, you know, a creator. So if you want to escape that, the only way is to say, no, I don't need God. I just need billion. and billion of other universe, and we are just by chance we are in the lucky one.

I did a full deep dive interview with Stephen Meyer on the multiverse, and he makes a number of points. And you make this in your book, that number one, what's called Occam's Razor, that oftentimes, in general, we go with the simpler explanation than the multi-layered explanation. And one God, who is a mind that can fine-tune things, is a simple, adequate, fitting explanation, whereas billions or trillions or an infinite number of universes is going beyond the resources we need to give a simple explanation for what we've discovered about the Orsiu universe. So I think that's one really important point you make. Second, you also draw out that when it comes to multiverse, even if there is a multiverse, it doesn't get rid of the need for design or the need for information to, in a sense of explaining the fine tuning. So it's like moving. Americans have a big health care problem.

Over 100 million U.S. citizens carry medical debt. But that's not the whole story. With health insurance, your out of pocket and monthly costs are way too high. You get surprise bills, denied claims, and poor customer service. That's a serious burden. As Christians, we don't have to pay for a broken system. Christian Healthcare Ministries is an alternative to health insurance at half the cost. You can enroll at any time and join a proven faith-based solution that's both reliable and affordable.

CHM isn't just help. It's financial and spiritual support when you need it most. Families across the country count on CHM to step in during their hardest moments. And it works. Stand up to health insurance with a low-cost biblical solution. Join CHM today by visiting CHministries.org slash wellness. That's CHministries.org slash wellness. A car to a car factory.

Well, what explains the factory that's fine-tuned to produce cars? it still requires a level of intelligence to explain it and information, which is the key challenge to materialism. Are there any other scientific, big key scientific discoveries or points that we left out that are part of this story and drama in the 20th century? Yes, yes, there is another one which is amazing, which is life. Life has appeared on Earth, four billion years ago. So life has appeared from matter. So it's very interesting to see the history of ideals.

So you know that in 1870, Darwin said, well, life is not a problem at all. Life appeared in a small pound of water at the foot of a volcano. And there were thunder, there were smoke, they were more chemical products. There were waters and wind moving. all that, and the first cell has jumped out of the hot water, naturally.

And this is what all the scientists believed between 1870, when Darwin said that, to 1950s for almost one century. Everybody believes that. It's so true that in the 1950s, in the United States, there were six very large laboratories which were working on primordial soup, primitive soup, you know the soup where you have all these chemicals and the rain and the thunder and electricity

and to see if we can make life appear from this primitive soup. And a very well-known laboratory was Miller, Robert Miller, I think, it was popular. He was in Chicago in the 19th. 1950s, and he was making a lot of chemical experimentation. But all these laboratories have closed, and they are closed now.

And why are they closed? Why did the laboratory of Miller stop his experiment? It is because in the middle of the 50s, we have discovered DNA-R-Na ribosome. We have discovered, it's an American scientist, Creek, mostly, who discovered that. And they have discovered that in the smallest cell, they are computers. Languages. Languages like in computers.

So a cell is a fantastic, is something fantastic. So when someone has understood what is really a cell, the density of information in the smallest cell is, is billion times more dense than in an iPhone. You imagine that the language and density of information, the sheets which are in a cell, are billion times more complicated than the one of our computers, iPhone, iPad.

So when people have discovered the complexity of DNA-RNA ribosome, which are computers talking together, and they have stopped because there is no chance that life could appear in a small pound of water. So nobody believes that anymore. So there is a mystery for life. Personally, I believe that there is a special fine-tuning of the universe which has been able to make the first cell.

But it is something which is so improbable, so improbable, so highly improbable. that again, it's like a fine tuning. It requires a super mind. So I think that apparition of life on Earth is a very strong evidence of the existence of a creator of God.

And I would like to give a citation of a Nobel Prize, an atheist, if your audience, people listening to us want to see its world. W-A-L-L-D, a Nobel Prize of Metis. I think, in the 1970s, he said, I make it short. There is two possibilities for the apparition of life.

One is creation by God and the other one is a spontaneous generation. Then he had, spontaneous generation, we know now it's impossible. So what is left is a creation by God. And he continues and says, personally, I have decided I will never believe in God. philosophically, I can't. I can't accept that. So he says, I prefer to believe

in something which I know impossible, which is the spontaneous generation of life. I think it's wonderful because it's very, it's very frank, in fact. What's they wrote George Ward who is an atheist and the Nobel Prize,

he says, I prefer to believe in the spontaneous generation of life because I don't want to believe in God because it's disturbing my life. Well, that's it. Isn't it fantastic? You have a chapter in a book with quote after quote from leading scholars talking about what they believe, why they believe it. So this isn't just you importing saying, here's the motivations. There's quite a few quotes of people saying things conceding why they believe one thing and don't

believe another. Now, at this point, one of the objections I hear is people say something like, Michelle, this is an argument from ignorance. In other words, just because we can't explain the beginning of the universe or the fine-tuning or the origin of life, it's a mystery scientifically speaking, doesn't mean there's a God. To say there's a God is a science stopper. So why isn't this an argument from ignorance and why do you think it's not a science stopper? Yes. The materialists, they love, they love very much and they use a lot this idea of the God of the Gap.

They like it. And say, you are just pure idiot, all the Christians, you are idiot because when you don't have an explanation, you say it's God. But this is not true at all. It's very simple. It's not true because, in fact, the person. problem is not that way. The problem is now, let's give it the right way it should be. God exists or it does not exist. It's two possibilities. We have two possibilities. God exists. He has created the

world or God does not exist and the world exists by itself. So can we choose between these two theory? And the answer is yes, we can choose because the theory that God does not exist. this theory has implication. If God does not exist, then. Then our universe cannot have a beginning. Then our universe has no reason to be fine to. And then life must appear from in not matter. We agree on that.

And that's what we call implication of the theory. And this implication, when we look into the world, they are false. It's not true. that our universe has no absolute beginning. So perhaps we can discuss, but if you are looking at a scale, the two theories, God exists and God does not exist,

which are two possible theory, the theory God does not exist today is extremely weak. It has no evidence, no argument. When the scale, the other side of the scale, God exists is extremely strong. because it's almost certain that our universe at an absolute beginning, it is almost certain that our universe is fine-tuned and there is no other universe, and it's almost certain that the apparition of life is a fantastic mystery

which requires at least a fantastic fine-tuning, which is a super mind. So that is the right way. We have to choose between two possible theory, And today the theory that God does not exist is a theory which, in my opinion and the opinion of many people, has become, recently, yes, has become now an irrational belief. Michelle, if the evidence is as strong as you indicate and almost certain that the universe had a beginning, why would so many scientists resist this, this? Yes, for some reasons that we have already mentioned and for some others. The first reason is that for many people, they believe that the existence of God is for them a limitation to their freedom. Because they have in mind that if they believe in God, many things will be forbidden.

like you won't steal, you won't cheat your wife, you won't lie, you won't steal, etc. So it's a limitation of freedom. And also they don't like the idea that a God could be a church would tell them, you did wrong. And there is another reason on top of this one, is that when we have a mental view of the universe, it is political, philosophical or religious view,

it is very difficult to change what we call a paradigm, very difficult to change, and it's not only difficult, but it's extremely painful. Have in mind what happened to the poor communist citizen when they realized in 1990, then when all the communist system fall apart and we discovered that so many people were in jail, that had been killed, it was horrible. and they were poor, it was such a shock for so many communists, you know, it was really painful. So can you say in one minute I'm not communist anymore? Because I have realized it's a lot of suffering.

There is a lot of suffering. So it's difficult to change the mind. This is why I think that all this scientific discovery, they will have an impact on the belief, but it will take, you know, one or two generations. That's really fair. You point out in the book that even some of the science itself is new, relatively speaking, up to the last 20 years, some of the discoveries it have made that just further and further point towards a beginning. Last question for you. Since really the book by Justin Breyerly in the UK on the surprising rebirth of belief in God, there's been a lot of conversation about how belief in God is coming back. the God conversation has shifted. And I've seen that take place in the U.S.

And of course, Justin Briley is attesting to that in the UK. Do you see that in France and beyond? Do you interpret your book as a sign that this conversation is shifting? Or do you feel more like a prophet just kind of shouting into the wind, trying to get people to change, but not seeing that shift taking place? there is absolutely certainly a shift and i would say that one sign of the shift is the success of our book which was completely unexpected by us completely unexpected to sell 450,000 books about the scientific evidence of the existence of god is just incredible why did that happen it happens

partly perhaps the book is good I hope so of course but there is another reason there is a thirst there is a real anger a real anger to know because the world is so empty today

and so desperate in some ways and it's an important question because if God does not exist nothing is important I mean we are like big mosquitoes you and me we are not different

from mosquitoes because a mosquito is a peculiar arrangement of atoms and particles. So if you crash a mosquitoes, if you kill a mosquitoes, it's just particles who are going to go away and make something different. But we are the same, more larger, more intelligent, but we are just particles. So if God does not exist, we are nothing. We are nothing. And nothing is important. The only thing we can do is to eat, drink and dance.

And this is what we are doing since perhaps 60 years, probably, eat, drink and dance. And people are fed up of that. We had the end of drinking because after drinking and eating and drinking is drug, of course, and it's sex. And then, and then where is happiness? So I think we had the end. We are at the end of a system which is born in the beginning of the 20th centuries, which has flourished in the 1960s with peace and love, which one in fact only laziness and sex, to be true, to say the truth.

And all that has not brought happiness to people. It has not brought freedom either. No freedom, no happiness. So people now, they say, all this is wrong, now we must. look if there is something or if there is nothing. So our book, for everybody of the general public, who is wanting to know if there is something or nothing, if we are nothing or if we are something by ourselves,

our book is trying to respond to this question. This is why I'm convinced there is the beginning of a shift. That's so fascinating to hear. Your book is huge. It's hundreds of pages, over 500 pages, but it's very readable. We probably covered a third of it with the scientific evidence. We walked through philosophical argument.

Health insurance rates in America are surging, leaving millions without affordable options. But Christians don't need to waste money on a broken system. Christian healthcare ministries is an alternative to health insurance at half the cost. With CHM, fellow believers contribute monthly to help pay each other's medical bills while lifting one another up in prayer. It's financial and spiritual support. when you need it most. Join CHM today by visiting CH Ministries.org slash wellness. That's

CHministries.org slash wellness. You give a historical case, which is a conversation for another time for the Gospels, the resurrection of Jesus. And because I teach apologetics, there's much of what I read in your book. I was like, I know this argument. I'm familiar with this person. But there were a number of sections, including the chapter before about the persecution of the scientists, that was novel. There's a chapter in the book in which you talk about certain out-of-reach truths in the Hebrew Bible that describe the cosmos and humanity that now seem common sense, but in their time, were totally radical and different from any other teachings of other faiths at the time. But if people want to know what those are, they're going to have to get the book.

It's called God, the science, the evidence, the dawn of a revolution. Your book in this conversation has blown me away, thoroughly enjoyed it, and I hope people pick it up, write a review for you, skeptic or believer, I think they'll enjoy it, they'll be challenged to think about the purpose of the universe. And folks, while you are here, make sure you hit subscribe. We're going to keep talking about the scientific evidence for God. We have some other conversations coming up on these topics and more, so make sure you hit subscribe and we actually have in our master's in apologetics program we do full classes we'd be

go into depth on a lot of the science that michel is talking about today we would love to have you join us in person or fully distance in our apologetic program information is below one last thing if you're like i want to learn more of it i'm not quite ready for a master's program we have totally updated our certificate program with some leading experts in the world where we'll walk you through lectures and just how to get a certificate showing that you have learning in apologetics, there's a big discount below for my YouTube subscribers and listeners to the audio podcast. Michelle, thanks for writing a fascinating book and thanks for joining me. Thank you, Sean.

Thank you very much. It's been my pleasure. Hey, friends, if you enjoyed this show, please hit that follow button on your podcast app. Most of you tuning in haven't done this yet, and it makes a huge difference in helping us reach and equip more people and build community. And please consider leaving a podcast review. Every review helps. Thanks for listening to the Sean McDowell Show,

brought to you by Talbot School of Theology at Biola University, where we have on campus and online programs in apologetic, spiritual formation, marriage and family, Bible, and so much more. We would love to train you to more effectively live, teach, and defend the Christian faith today. And we will see you when the next episode drops. If you're tired of parenting advice and news headlines that are more confusing than assembling IKEA furniture, we've got just a podcast for you. My dear friend Abby and I are here to help you navigate the parenting rollercoaster.

Should your kids be on social media? What should you tell a friend facing an unplanned pregnancy? These are just some of the many questions we tackle on our podcast. Subscribe to the Real Deal of Parenting wherever you find your podcast. Thank you.