Negative Positive
Title: Worthwhile reading
Review: I found this book very worthwhile reading. Glynn is good at making his case easy to follow, even though it involves some complex scientific concepts especially in the first chapter. It's not a proof of God's existence, of course; no one is capable of doing that. (Some reviewers seem to consider the book a failure because it's not a proof, but I don't understand why.) Rather, its strength is in demonstrating how, given the facts available, one must really strain to come up with an alternative explanation of the facts that doesn't involve a God. Sadly, if Glynn's account of the views of certain scientists and philosophers is accurate, those people seem to prefer to put their faith in strained explanations and theories, while actively refusing to consider the explanation that's right in front of their faces.
Is the review positive or negative? 