Isaac Newton Was Wrong,
Stephen Hawking Says












He believes spontaneous creation is the reason
there is something rather than nothing.

Summary: Professor Stephen Hawking, Britain's most famous physicist,
says there is no place for God in theories concerning the creation of
the universe.  In a new book to be published September 9, Hawking
shows he disagrees with Sir Isaac Newton's belief that the universe
could not have sprung out of chaos and must have been designed by
God.

In his 1988 bestseller,
A Brief History of Time, Hawking had argued that
belief in a creator was not incompatible with science.  "If we discover a
complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for
then we should know the mind of God," he said then.  Now he maintains
the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics and
that "spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than
nothing, why we exist."

The physicist cited the 1992 discovery of a planet orbiting a star other
than our Sun as proof our planetary conditions (single Sun, Earth-Sun
distance, solar mass) could just be a matter of luck and not evidence it
was carefully designed for human life.  Because there is gravity, he
adds, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.  God is not
necessary to get the universe going.

A bishop, Dr. Lee Rayfield, countered Hawking by saying that science
can never prove God's non-existence any more than it can prove His
existence.  The bishop reminds us that many people with a knowledge
of cosmology and mathematics do see a universe that matches a belief
in God and His nature.

(Photograph from Wikipedia.)

To read the entire article click on
BBC NEWS.

Comment: How sad to read an article like this one!  It is clear that in
the name of science, a well-known physicist is substituting one system
of belief for another.  Hawking says that the law of gravity is enough to
get the universe going, but what created the law of gravity and how
could it create the whole universe?  He cites the discovery of other
planets as proof our finely-tuned solar system which makes life possible
could just be a lucky accident.  Yet other evolutionists have admitted
the universe seems too finely tuned to credit its origin to good luck.

It is clear that neither "something out of nothing" nor "spontaneous
generation" (life out of non-life) are scientific laws.  Has something ever
been created out of nothing in a scientist's laboratory? Has anyone
come up even with a half-way logical theory as to how this could occur  
other than to say, "it just happened"?

This story is sad because it describes a great mind who has deliberately
chosen not to believe in a Creator.  Naturalism, the belief that nature is
everything there is, is powerless to help anybody.  Only God, who has
given us such a well-designed universe and a well-designed planet and
well-designed bodies, can possibly help the human race. Even the flaws
that have crept into His perfect creation will be set aside when we leave
his world behind and enter the perfect world of heaven, thanks to Jesus
taking the responsibility for our sins upon Himself when He died on the
cross.  Nature has no more ability to save us than it has had to create
itself.
PRINT

***************************************************************************

Want to be automatically notified each time there is a new
post? Just e-mail your request to
[admin@lutheranscience.org].

***************************************************************************

QUESTION OF THE DAY

What is meant by a form of argument called disjunctive syllogism?














***************************************************************************
0 Comments

NOTE ON VISITOR COMMENTS: The visitor comments section on this
site has been temporarily disabled.  We still invite your comments, but
please use the
blogspot site (Click Here) for doing this.  Thank you.
Friday, Sept. 3, 2010       Prefer to read this post in Blogspot?  Click Here.     PRINT
<HOME> <ALL POSTS>
Disjunctive syllogism can be used when
there are only two possibilities.  It means
that a person supports one position by
arguing against the other.  Evolutionists
sometimes try to support evolution by
arguing against creation and then complain
when creationists argue against evolution in
order to support creationism.

Source: Jonathan Sarfati,
The Greatest
Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on
Evolution

CLICK FOR
ALL  POSTS
The opinions expressed
here are those of The
Editor and do not
necessarily represent
the views of the Lutheran
Science Institute. Please
note that links in older
posts may be broken
.
About Me - Warren Krug
The Editor

Decades ago I attended a
so-called Lutheran
university where I could
have lost my faith. The
science professors promoted
the theory of evolution and
made fun of anybody who
believed in the account of
creation as presented in
the book of Genesis.
Thanks be to God, some
creationist literature and
the Bible soon helped get
me back on the right track.
Ever since then I have
taken an active interest in
the creation/evolution
controversy.

Background image from NASA