On October 5 at The Times, science editor Ben Spencer reported on a striking new book coming out in English in mid-October. The two French authors of God, the Science, the Evidence insist that science points to God.
That wouldn’t seem like a big deal in evangelical circles in the United States. But the book has sold over 400,000 copies in Europe since it was published four years ago in French:
In a striking challenge to the academic consensus, two French authors, Michel-Yves Bolloré and Olivier Bonnassies, argue that the latest scientific theories lead to only one logical conclusion: an all-powerful deity created the universe and all life within it.
“Does God exist? Modern science shows he must, bestseller argues” October 5 2025
Computer engineer Michel-Yves Bolloré, a lifelong Catholic, and Olivier Bonnassies, a media entrepreneur who came late to faith, argue that the universe must have had a creator. Their purpose, however, is not evangelism but dethroning materialism, using the advance of science:
The authors’ ideas have received support from unexpected quarters. The renowned physicist Robert Wilson, who was jointly awarded the Nobel prize in physics for the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation, agreed to write the foreword to the book. “Although the general thesis … that a higher mind could be at the origin of the universe does not provide a satisfying explanation for me, I can accept its coherence,” he wrote. “If the universe had a beginning, then we cannot avoid the question of creation.”
Their book explores key scientific theories such as the Big Bang, the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics and the human genome. Each detail was checked with a group of leading scientists to ensure the arguments could not be challenged on the basis of scientific inaccuracy. “Bestseller argues”
A New Openness to the Evidence?
Note that Wilson is not a convert; he is simply someone who accepts the coherence of their idea. Perhaps more significantly, he does not feel threatened by it. Neither, apparently, do the “leading astrophysicists, neuroscientists and philosophers” the authors have been conferring with. Now that’s new.
Apparently, these leading scientists — believers and non-believers alike — don’t feel threatened even though the authors touch the dreaded Third Rail:
Another key mystery that can be explained only by the existence of some universal God, the authors argue, is the start of life. “DNA appeared on earth 3.8 billion years ago, and it was a technological marvel,” said Bonnassies. “All living beings on earth: bacteria, human beings, plants, animals — they are all coded by this same DNA.”
According to the theory of evolution, this incredibly sophisticated data storage system — 40,000 billion times more dense than the most advanced computer today — emerged from the primordial soup quite by chance. The authors write: “While we still do not know how that gap was bridged, or a fortiori, how to replicate such an event, we do know enough to appreciate its infinite improbability.” “Bestseller argues”
There is no question that something has changed if the magic word “Evolution!” cannot be used to paper over vast improbabilities and silence dissenters in the way that it has for over a century. Somehow, it is becoming permissible to know that vast improbabilities mean that there is something wrong with the theory.
A Flash in the Pan?
One reason for thinking that God, the Science, the Evidence (2025) is not just a flash in the pan is that, as we noted last month, there is considerable evidence of a religious revival among the young. Just when secular atheism is deplatforming its world-class voices over “rainbow” issues, reducing its chances of any effective response…
Yesterday, Jana Harmon, author of Atheists Finding God (2023) and host of the Ex-Skeptic podcast, told me something in passing:
Interestingly, I recently conducted an informal analysis of sixteen scientists (fifteen of them PhDs) whom I’ve interviewed on eX-skeptic. I presented the findings this August to the Scholars Community at Reasons to Believe. My goal was to explore how and why these scientists moved from a naturalistic or materialistic view of science toward openness to God as a better explanatory framework.
What emerged was fascinating: for a strong majority, the primary catalyst for change was intellectual. This finding was quite different from the fifty former atheists featured in my book, where intellectual reasons were in the minority at the catalyst stage. These scientists were often propelled either by an inner drive for coherent understanding or by pivotal external questions that compelled them to seek a more satisfying explanation. E-mail, October 5, 2025
So, however these scientists feel about materialism emotionally; they do not find it convincing intellectually. For one thing, materialism is, as philosopher Edward Feser points out, a snake that eats its own tail. If our minds are merely illusions or brain noise, why should we believe anything?
It’s as if the death of eliminative materialist philosopher Daniel Dennett (1942–2024) last year was a watershed of some kind.
Will Materialism Be Reborn as Panpsychism?
I’ve long thought so. Some materialists, sensing the difficulty, have been moving toward panpsychism as a fallback position. They are willing to allow that an apparently immaterial thing like consciousness really exists so long as it is part of the physics of the material universe. So long as every living thing — or maybe even every electron — is conscious. Analytical philosopher Galen Strawson has moved in this direction. And University of Chicago biochemist James Shapiro, tells us that all living cells are cognitive. Leading neuroscientist Christof Koch’s widely publicized troubles with his colleagues originated in allegations of panpsychism.
Panpsychism seems like a stronger horse than materialism and I am predicting that its popularity will grow among materialists.
Editor’s note: This article is sponsored by Palomar Editions, publisher of God, the Science, the Evidence. However, Discovery Institute staff were responsible for the editorial content of this posting. It is reprinted here by permission of the Discovery Institute.
