Typically I try to ignore the uninformed ramblings of the atheistic scientific community when it comes to matters of God and origins.  But I think it’s time to get back to regular writing and focusing more on science, though I will continue on with politics. I read a recent article at Tech Times where Stephen Hawking (once again) declared that science provides a “more convincing explanation” for the universe than God. Of course, the article, which you can find here, starts off with the expected charge that for Christians, the Bible is sufficient to explain the story of creation through some all-powerful flip of the hand of God. Perhaps some Christians do believe that, but it is certainly not the view of Christians who are engaged in science and the discussion of origins of the universe, galaxies, solar systems, biospheres, and biological organisms. Personally, I am a Christian because of the historical testimony of the Bible, and the fact that Jesus Christ walked this earth 2000 years ago. He is not a myth but a real person, and the only thing truly in dispute is if he actually raised from the dead. If he did not raise from the dead, then Christianity is false, and I’m perfectly willing to accept that.

Nonetheless, I don’t depend on the Bible as a book of science.  It is a book about God’s relationship to man, and is not a scientific text.  What I believe is that science simply confirms the biblical story, particularly the creation of the universe ex nihilo (i.e., out of nothing). Hawking certainly believes as I do that the universe had a beginning 13.7 billion years ago, and that it was created from a singularity. He has no knowledge of what happened before that, no matter how brilliant his math is. He notes in the article that the creation of the world is scientifically explainable and has nothing to do with God, but his logic is terribly poor on two fronts. First, science doesn’t explain the universe and its contents. What science does for the most part is describe the universe and its contents, and is always provisional because new discoveries are always being made. I can imagine five hundred years from now scientists will look back on Stephen Hawking and see just how quaint his work was since it was revised numerous times. Perhaps they will say it was good for its time, but he was a man of his times and he couldn’t escape that so he did the best he could given the technology available at that time.

The second flaw in Hawking’s reasoning is the fact that whether he can explain the universe or not, the ability to explain something is in no way related to what caused it. Even Newton, a theist, could not explain gravity though he could mathematically describe it. Forensic science today can explain human agency in a crime scene in startling detail because all sorts of evidence is left behind as the result of agency that cannot be explained by law and chance. You wouldn’t expect the forensic scientist to then declare no one committed the crime because they could explain what happened in excruciating detail. You would expect them to say they have detected agency even though they don’t know who the agent or agents were. It’s the same with the universe. Perhaps we don’t know who the agent was or even if there was an agent, but what we do know is that we don’t see organized complexity on this earth outside the biological world unless there is human agency. So it is entirely reasonable to believe the universe had some ordering principle or agent that brought about its complexity. That does not imply that the agent is necessarily beneficent or benevolent, but it is a reasonable inference that should not be disparaged, particularly by the purely philosophical, and not scientific, musings of Stephen Hawking.

The point is Hawking doesn’t know if there is a God or some organizing principle in the universe. It is fine that he is an atheist and he is entitled to his belief, but to make pronouncements that there is no God to those who believe otherwise is simply not for him to judge unless he has proof of his position. Likewise, it’s not my place to judge someone who doesn’t believe there is a God. People who believe in God are not making up fairy tales or are afraid of the dark, as Hawking asserts. They make a simple inference from the design they see in nature and in everyday things that other humans make. So I can’t think of a more condescending and detestable thing for Hawking to say about his fellow man, as if we’re all simply rubes that need to bow down to his superior intelligence. Hawking can no more tell us how or why the universe came about than he can tell us why his body has been ravaged by such an awful disease as ALS. My only hope is that this man does not ultimately end up losing his soul too. May God bless Hawking.


{ Comments on this entry are closed }

As of right now, that wonderful browser Firefox has been uninstalled from all machines in my office, and good riddance. Mozilla’s CEO, Brendan Eich, was forced out of Mozilla solely because of his belief in traditional marriage. The headlines read that he was forced to resign after a firestorm of controversy due to his support of the “anti-gay” ballot measure in California.  Proposition 8 was passed in 2008 making same-sex marriage unrecognized with 52% of the vote, but was overturned (in effect) by the Supreme Court in 2013. The proposition added a new section in the California Constitution to read “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” It was not intended to be “anti-gay” as opponents called it, but intended to recognize the uniqueness of the male and female bond, particularly the ability to procreate naturally and raise a family. I believe sincere people can disagree on this issue, but no one should have to lose their job in a world that is supposedly driving towards “diversity” and “tolerance.”

An article at the website “The Verge” provides a good summary of the events that led up to Eich’s resignation, but it was riddled with hypocrisy, and demonstrated that the entire diversity and tolerance movement is little more than a sham. It doesn’t apply equally to all, and isn’t that supposed to be the very idea? The article states that “Eich found little public support for his argument that he could uphold Mozilla’s commitment to equality at work while funding discrimination at home.” Eich’s belief in traditional marriage is not discrimination, but it is a sincerely held Christian belief that I also hold. Christianity has been around for 2,000 years, and the Jewish history on which it is based on goes back at least 4,000 years. So if Eich accepts the Judeo-Christian view on marriage, how was he discriminating? He didn’t make Christianity up himself, and last I checked Christian teachings have not changed one whit in 2,000 years. So is the point of this article that Christians are not included when it comes to diversity and tolerance? It appears that this is the case, and that is what is so chilling. I am sincerely afraid.

The article goes on to say that Eich’s view was growing “out of step” with his fellow Americans. But if he is following a sincere religious belief shared by almost all of the two billion Christians on earth, is he supposed to follow that or follow what most Americans think? If all Americans think as the article believes they should, where is the diversity of views? Where is the tolerance of Eich’s views? And since when did it become necessarily the case that because Eich believed in traditional marriage that he would discriminate against gay employees? I expect he is a man who, after a lengthy search was made CEO, would have been seen as a man of outstanding leadership and character who would treat all employees with dignity and respect. There is no reason to believe otherwise. The article refers to Obama’s sudden change from being opposed to same-sex marriage based on his Christian faith, to supporting it. Christianity didn’t change, so if his position was based on his Christian faith, then what is it based on now? We can see that Obama folded for political expediency, but Eich held to his faith and position.

It is clear that the diversity and tolerance movement only applies to those who believe a certain way. They don’t want diversity of thought, but one way of thought, and if you don’t think that way, then they will do everything they can to silence your views. It’s not about tolerance, because the definition of tolerance is putting up with someone or something you don’t agree with. So the diversity and tolerance movement won’t tolerate people who don’t think like them. And it is clear that the primary target is those who hold Christian beliefs. It is chilling to the core, and the very people behind this movement couldn’t be more hypocritical and self-serving. Is this the new America? Will America accept a movement whose very operation is antithetical to its very name? It appears this is the trend, and I am more than certain that a movement wholly inconsistent with its mission cannot be a worthy one. All Christians should be afraid, very afraid, of this modern day persecution.


{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Gay Republican Candidate Richard Tisei: Tolerance Only Goes One Way

March 24, 2014

In a recent Wall Street Journal article, George Tisei, a gay man and leading candidate who is running for Congress in Massachusetts, notified the Republican Party recently that it needs to embrace “all freedoms,” including the freedom to marry someone of the same sex. He sees it as a party that is “stuck in the […]

Read the full article →

Understanding Liberal Argumentation: Jehmu Greene vs. John Stossel

March 18, 2014

This past week I watched an episode of John Stossel where he clearly and persuasively debunked the phony “war on women” liberals fomented in 2012 out of thin air, a problem that of course only Democrats in government can solve. In a segment on Obamacare, one of his guests was Obama apologist extraordinaire Jehmu Greene, […]

Read the full article →

Liberals and the “Discrimination” Ruse

March 9, 2014

This weekend I was listening to a talk radio show discussing the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), where the subject of “women’s rights” came up. Sirius XM radio host David Webb had a liberal and a conservative guest providing opposing perspectives on the purported pay disparity between men and women. While it has been conclusively […]

Read the full article →

Arizona SB 1062: When People Willfully Suppress Truth for Lies

March 2, 2014

Again, the LGBT community preferred to make truth a casualty as they lobbied hard to kill a simple update to already existing Arizona law. And they were joined by prominent Republicans, the NFL, and even Governor Jan Brewer who vetoed the bill on Friday purely out of political pressure and a lack of conviction. The […]

Read the full article →

What Gays Need is More Love, Not More Attention

January 27, 2014

Over the past year, a number of television personalities and athletes have “come out” as being gay, to the collective yawn of the American people. In what they believe to be a “courageous” move, we find that “coming out” isn’t courageous at all because these people who come out are finding they aren’t being treated […]

Read the full article →

Walter’s Healthcare Reform Plan

November 27, 2013

I can’t really say this is mine because it comes from a number of ideas floating around out there. But this is what I am advocating for as a replacement for that horrid and horrible government power grab called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). In essence, the problem that needs to be […]

Read the full article →

Liberals and Big Government Have No Claim to Moral High Ground

October 13, 2013

Last Friday I watched the Sean Hannity show, which was a special on Obamacare.  It was in a forum format consisting of various liberal and conservative pundits. What never ceases to amaze me is the smug, self-righteous demeanor of these liberal commentators who believe themselves to be morally superior, but in truth are drowning in […]

Read the full article →

Thoughts on Zimmerman and Deen (Certainly Not a Classic Rock Duo)

June 29, 2013

Just a few thoughts on George Zimmerman and Paula Deen, as I am a bit disappointed at some the reaction to these stories on both sides. On the Zimmerman story, I do not like the race-baiters who see this thing entirely from the perspective of race. Who knows what is in the heart of Zimmerman, […]

Read the full article →