The laws of nature that are required for life forms to exist appear in some universes by pure chance [clarification needed], Hawking and Mlodinow explain (see Anthropic principle).

[9] Evolutionary biologist and advocate for atheism Richard Dawkins welcomed Hawking's position and said that "Darwinism kicked God out of biology but physics remained more uncertain.

"[12] Theoretical physicist Sean M. Carroll, writing in The Wall Street Journal, described the book as speculative but ambitious: "The important lesson of The Grand Design is not so much the particular theory being advocated but the sense that science may be able to answer the deep 'Why?'

"[14] James Trefil, a professor of physics at George Mason University, said in his Washington Post review: "I've waited a long time for this book.

"[9] Canada Press journalist Carl Hartman said: "Cosmologists, the people who study the entire cosmos, will want to read British physicist and mathematician Stephen Hawking's new book.

Writing in the Los Angeles Times, Michael Moorcock praised the authors: "their arguments do indeed bring us closer to seeing our world, universe and multiverse in terms that a previous generation might easily have dismissed as supernatural.

This succinct, easily digested book could perhaps do with fewer dry, academic groaners, but Hawking and Mlodinow pack in a wealth of ideas and leave us with a clearer understanding of modern physics in all its invigorating complexity.

"[1] German daily Süddeutsche Zeitung devoted the whole opening page of its culture section to The Grand Design.

CERN physicist and novelist Ralf Bönt [de] reviews the history of the theory of everything from the 18th century to M-theory, and takes Hawking's conclusion on God's existence as a very good joke which he obviously welcomes very much.

Roger Penrose in the FT doubts that adequate understandings can come from this approach, and points out that "unlike quantum mechanics, M-theory enjoys no observational support whatsoever".

[18] Joe Silk in Science suggests that "Some humbleness would be welcome here...A century or two hence...I expect that M-theory will seem as naïve to cosmologists of the future as we now find Pythagoras's cosmology of the harmony of the spheres".

"[20] Dwight Garner in The New York Times was critical of the book, saying: "The real news about The Grand Design is how disappointingly tinny and inelegant it is.

The spare and earnest voice that Mr. Hawking employed with such appeal in A Brief History of Time has been replaced here by one that is alternately condescending, as if he were Mr. Rogers explaining rain clouds to toddlers, and impenetrable.

"[21] Paul Davies in The Guardian wrote: "The multiverse comes with a lot of baggage, such as an overarching space and time to host all those bangs, a universe-generating mechanism to trigger them, physical fields to populate the universes with material stuff, and a selection of forces to make things happen.

Cosmologists embrace these features by envisaging sweeping "meta-laws" that pervade the multiverse and spawn specific bylaws on a universe-by-universe basis.

"[22] Dr. Marcelo Gleiser, in his article "Hawking And God: An Intimate Relationship", stated that "contemplating a final theory is inconsistent with the very essence of physics, an empirical science based on the gradual collection of data.

I'm in favor of naturalism and leaving God out of physics as much as the next person, but if you're the sort who wants to go to battle in the science/religion wars, why you would choose to take up such a dubious weapon as M-theory mystifies me.

The physicist Tony Rothman, with whom I worked at Scientific American in the 1990s, liked to say that the anthropic principle in any form is completely ridiculous and hence should be called CRAP.

"[25] The Economist is also critical of the book: Hawking and Mlodinow "...say that these surprising ideas have passed every experimental test to which they have been put, but that is misleading in a way that is unfortunately typical of the authors.

Perhaps science, as Professor Hawking and Mr Mlodinow practice it in their airier moments, has indeed changed places with philosophy, though probably not quite in the way that they think.

"[2] British scientist Baroness Greenfield also criticized the book in an interview with BBC Radio: "Of course they can make whatever comments they like, but when they assume, rather in a Taliban-like way, that they have all the answers, then I do feel uncomfortable."