The author's thesis is simply distilled and has often been an overlooked feature of the teleological argument for the existence and nature of God: not only that design is evidence of intelligence and will, but that beauty is evidence of truth. Catholic theologian Thomas Dubay illustrates the connection between beauty and truth. Physicist Richard Feynman said, "You can recognize truth by its beauty and simplicity." Einstein regarded the beauty of a physical theory as a proof superior to empirical evidence. Mathematicians have long regarded the beauty and elegance of an equation or mathematical expression as the most necessary indicator of its truth. We have come to realize that nature is ultimately mathematics, beautiful mathematics (Plato was right). Why is reality, at its core, beauty? Whether the equations that describe the deepest features of the quantum world, the fine tuning of the cosmic initial conditions, the highly specified organization of microbiological cell "cities" (we could go on and on), nature is all about beauty. What does this indicate to the uncallused observer? And what then is the evidential power of ugliness? Dubay contrasts the two contending worldviews: materialism (existence is a meaningless and ultimately absurd accident), or theism (existence is intended, meaningful), concluding that the very ugliness of absurdity is evidence of the falsity of atheism/philosophical materialism.
"... simple observation shows that people, including academics, readily welcome intellectual interventions and therefore design, when the question is free of cultural biases and does not impinge on their personal lifestyle and chosen philosophy. I find it both amusing and instructive that when scientists come upon evidence in their field (anthropology, for example) that seems to support a theory popular among their colleagues, no one hints that an apparent causal connection was due to random chance. In an archeological dig, if the investigators find a stone so chipped that it could have served as a knife, they conclude that it was deliberately made, that is, designed for that purpose by a human ancestor. Their inference may well be true, but all the same, it is enormously weaker than design in a bird's wing, and fantastically weaker than design throughout any living cell. In the latter, the case for design is overwhelming. When it is rejected, the cause must be due to personal philosophy and bias having nothing to do with science. In more plain language, the rejection has all the appearance of a materialistic dogma that no divine mind must be admitted. This is bad science because it is a position based on a personal philosophy and not on scientific data. The carefully arranged and massive blocks of stone at Stonehenge are a more detailed example of a scientific acceptance of design when such is popular. Their precise positioning is explained, most likely correctly, by the deliberate will to align them to the sunrise at the summer solstice. This likelihood seems stronger than that of the chipped stone, but it remains far, far weaker than the endless examples nature furnishes ... Yes, something less than cool, objective scientific thinking lies behind the rejection of mind behind nature."
The science here isn't always precise, but where it is not it seems that Dubay has understated his case. Thus the discrepancies do not damage the author's thesis. The greater flaw to this volume is that the author has presented not only an apologia for the reality of a wise Creator but for the Roman Catholic Church. Cases against atheism suddenly incorporate attacks on Protestants, rock n roll, contraception, etc. If the book had been edited into something more lean and 'on-task' this would be a tremendous book. It's pretty good as is.