Search This Blog

Friday, September 24, 2010

What kind of idiocy are they Hawking now? We might as well get some mirth out of it.

Hawking atheopathy

Famous physicist goes beyond the evidence

I will not reprint the entire article, just a couple of tasty tidbits.   I think that it is hilarious that this supposedly world-class thinker is actually proposing a situation rather akin to a fairy tale.  


Hawking’s whole edifice rests on “M-theory”. The book claims, “M-theory is not a theory in the usual sense. It is a whole family of different theories.” This predicts that “ours is not the only universe.” Rather, “Instead M-theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing.” And here is their punch line: “ … their creation does not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god. Rather, these multiple universes arise naturally from physical law. They are a prediction of science.” But given that these can’t be observed, even in principle, this is unscientific.

M-theory enjoys no observational support whatever.—Hawking’s former collaborator Sir Roger Penrose on the ‘science’ behind Hawking’s claims

But they argue that it would explain why some will inevitably have the characteristics for life, and if ours wasn’t one of them, then we wouldn’t be here to observe it. This is a variant of the so-called ‘anthropic principle’ (from Greek anthrōpos άνθρωπος = man). This sounds profound but it’s actually no explanation at all. As Christian philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig pointed out:
If you were dragged before a trained firing squad, and they fired and missed:
it is true that you should not be surprised to observe that you are not dead, but
it is equally true that you should be surprised to observe that you are alive.
If you were asked, ‘How did you survive?’, it would be inadequate to answer, ‘If I didn’t, I would not be here to answer you.’26
Multiverses supposedly explain the existence of ours with special characteristics. But this is really special pleading, i.e. an explanation these atheists accept for the universe but would not tolerate for a second to explain anything else. Consider if we found a pattern of markings on a beach which spelled your name. Naturally you would conclude that an intelligent agent had written it. This is more plausible than thinking that wind and wave erosion somehow produced that pattern by chance, even though there is an extremely tiny probability of this happening.

But under multiverse reasoning, there are an infinite number of parallel universes containing every possible quantum state, ‘In infinite space, even the most unlikely events must take place somewhere.’27
So if a person had an a priori bias that no one could have written your name, he could argue that we just happen to be in one of the tiny fraction of universes where this improbable erosion pattern arose naturally. If this sounds totally unreasonable, then by the same logic, so is the atheistic preference for an infinite number of universes over a Creator.28
It’s notable that his ideas have been criticised by none other than his greatest collaborator on black holes, Sir Roger Penrose.29 Penrose reviewed his old friend’s book,30 and commented on “Hawking’s strange-sounding philosophical standpoint of theory-dependent realism put forward here.” I.e. Hawking has proven nothing; rather, his whole edifice depends on a very shaky theory of physics, which Penrose explains is “ … ‘M-theory’, a popular (but fundamentally incomplete) development of string theory. … M-theory enjoys no observational support whatever.”

String theory itself, let alone M-theory that stems from it, is most dubious. An editorial in New Scientist lamented about how the fancy mathematics of string theory really prove nothing in reality:
But these equations tell us nothing about where space and time came from and describe nothing we would recognize.31
This also cited a running joke among cosmologists:
Q: why is our universe unique?
A: it’s the only one that string theory can’t explain!32

Hawking’s collaborators disagree

As above, Penrose is most critical of Hawking’s current book. He also criticised Hawking’s previous best seller—in the film version of A Brief History of Time, he said (although he claims no religious beliefs):
There is a certain sense in which I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance. Some people take the view that the universe is simply there and it runs along—it’s a bit as though it just sort of computes, and we happen by accident to find ourselves in this thing. I don’t think that’s a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it, about its existence, which we have very little inkling of at the moment.
Another of Hawking’s major collaborators is George Ellis.33 Yet he is not an atheist but a Quaker and Platonist, and winner of the Templeton Prize. Ellis is much more aware than Hawking of how cosmogonic models are heavily dependent on philosophical assumptions. In an interview in Scientific American, Ellis was quoted as follows:
“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”34
Last year, Prof. Ellis gave an interesting private lecture at a university in South Africa, which was attended by creationist engineering student E. van Niekerk, who reports:
He (carefully) disagrees with this atheistic fluff that Hawking and his fellow colleagues generate. He for instance told us why the multiverse idea does not solve the problem of design, or why this universe is here. He also slipped something else. There either has to be an eternal being/God, or an eternal universe, and he does not seem convinced that this universe can be eternal (even with fluctuations of existence etc.). Although he is not a biblical creationist, he said there is one piece in the Bible that was very “reasonable”. That is the opening words of the gospel of John, namely: In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the Word was God.


  • Hawking’s greatest works were in black hole physics.
  • He has courageously fought against a terrible physical disability. His Christian wife Jane was a great support, but eventually he left her after 25 years of marriage.
  • His fame largely rests on his weak attempts to exclude God based on tendentious physics. His atheism was present early, and was an assumption he brought to his physics; it was not derived from his science. It was also a source of growing conflict in his marriage, that stretched it to breaking point.
  • Hawking’s latest work contains flaws in logic and the philosophy of science. E.g. “self-creation” is logically contradictory, and the laws of science cause nothing to occur but describe what does occur.
  • He proposes a theory of multiverses, but this is not scientific since they can’t be observed.
  • His M-theory isn’t supported by a shred of experimental evidence.
Thus a summary of Hawking’s approach is:
  • The universe looks designed, but a designer is not allowed.
  • So there must be some other explanation.
  • Let’s resort to some other religious ideas to explain the appearance of design (the multiverse).
  • Then let’s use even more religious ideas to support our religious idea.
  • And then let’s claim it is science to show no designer was necessary.
  • We win!"
The rest of the article and all of the sources are found at the original article site here. 

The composer of the cartoons above is also our newest Links member:  Evident Creation

Enjoy this example of the blog, below...

1. Similarity is evidence for ancestral relationships.
This is circular reasoning. If the relationship is ancestral then similarities would be due to common ancestry, but if similarities are from a designer using the same or similar structures, then similarity is evidence of a common designer. Evolutionists cite similarity as evidence for evolution, but evolution is supposed to explain the differences. Go figure. If evolution did it, explain how the differences occurred. Similarity is a non-issue. And its not just which one of these things is not like the other, but why?  There are however many features that prove that similarity is not the result of common ancestry.  Evolutionists have even given these evidences a name, convergent and parallel evolution.
Convergent evolution is due to similar behaviors or environments producing similar structures. How does the DNA know what mutations it needs to turn an arm into a wing or leg into a fin, or a fin into a leg? The fascinating thing about convergent evolution is that is showing up all over the place, right down to the mechanisms in the cell. So, similarity indicates ancestral relationships, except when it doesn't

The better explanation is that the similar structures were designed for similar needs. That makes a lot of sense, but its anti-evolutionary.
Parallel evolution occurs when similar features develop without any particular connection to behavior or to the environment. How does that happen? Just coincidence? But it does provide even more evidence that similarity doesn't mean common ancestry.

Have you heard the popular myth spread by evolutionists that chimps and humans are genetically 98% to 99% identical?  After examining the DNA sequences in more detail over the years scientists have now dropped the number to 94%. And the examination is not done yet. The 98% was reached is after selecting genes they arleady thought to be similar and comparing only 1% of the genomes of both species. Wait for the gap to grow farther still. Even so, evolution needs to explain the vast differences, not the similarities.
2. Natural Selection is a creative force.
Natural selection only "chooses" from available information, it does not create any. It does not act on the genotype of an organism. Yet, evolutionists often give natural selection creative and goal seeking powers, and credit it with solving many of life's problems. Features are said to have evolved because they gave the organism a "selective advantage." But in actuality a selective advantage only helps to maintain the current genetic makeup, rather than forcing it in any way to become better. Natural selection is not creative.  It does not change genetic information.  It is not a force and it puts no pressure on any organism to modify its genes. See the true role of natural selection
3. Appeals to future evidence for validation are acceptable.
That's what science is, isn't it? First you ask the question. Secondly, you determine the answer. Then you believe the answer until you find the evidence to support it.  One of the most common phrases in evolutionary literature goes something like this, "there is still plenty of testing that needs to be done." This is after they've presented their conclusions and told you their facts. Right now, scientists do not know how the first chemicals needed for life would form. They do not know how the first information bearing molecule would form. They do not know why all the body plans suddenly appeared, how the moon formed, how the planets formed, how legs turned into wings, fins turned into legs or legs turned into fins. They have no sure solution for any other evolutionary event in the history of the universe. Yet they claim it's an established fact, one of the most robust in science!

Evolutionary literature is filled with "mights", "maybes" and "probablies." For every "answer" they present there is a potential question lurking in the background that will derail that very answer.  When the problem comes to light, the "fact of evolution" is never questioned. There belief tells them evolution must be  correct. They continue to believe in spite of the fact that science has shown them to be wrong time and time again. They believe that science will ultimately prove them right. They insist we believe it now and trust them.  But, when you can't believe what the science is showing you right now, before your very eyes, and must defer to a future discovery, that's faith. Its how you keep a theory alive for 150 years without needing validation.
Are we there yet?
4. Information can arise spontaneously.
Life is built on information. The DNA molecule holds volumes of information, instructions on how to build, maintain and reproduce an organism. Not only that, it holds instructions on how to interact with the outside world, the brains of all animals come loaded with a fully functional operating system. Evolutionists believe that this information was put together by many accumulated errors in DNA.

Experiments that claim to show evolution of information or learning all start with intelligently designed equipment, equations and programming. In the end only they support the idea that information does not arise spontaneously. Very rarely do they test using molecules used by life, because those molecules are not capable of combining to create information bearing molecules without the aid of intelligence. In spite of the obvious evolutionists still cling to the idea that the volumes of information contained in life could have arisen by chance.
5. Evolution is not based on chance.
In the "God Delusion Debate" Richard Dawkins, frustrated over comments by scientist John Lennox, said of evolution "It's not chance, natural selection is the opposite of chance!" This exemplifies the problem. Evolution is not just natural selection. It is natural selection, variation and mutation.  The factor that would generate new code is mutation. Mutation is by definition, an error, and it occurs randomly. Mutations may follow certain patterns, but they are not planned, they are random. Evolution relies on blind luck for the material that natural selection can act on.  No wonder evolutionists attempt to keep the focus on natural selection.
6. Evolution proceeds by using trial and error.
This is another concept often found in evolutionary literature. Adaptations are often said to have developed through a series of trials and errors. This however is backwards. Since mutation is the supposed source of the adaptation, then the error precedes the trial. An error has to create a new functional adaptation before it can be put to the test.
Then we have another term in evolutionary literature, "pre-adaptation," this means that an adaptation evolved before it was needed, and therefore could not have been tested. This means that evolution proceeds through trial and error, except when it doesn't.

But, since each system in life must have arisen before it was tested and could not confer a selective advantage until after it became part of the phenotype, then every feature in life must be the result of a "pre-adaptation." Which means that pre-adaptation is just a way to avoid examining the question of why a feature would develop in the first place. Pre-adaptation is another way of saying "that's fortunate."
7. Consensus is acceptable in science and evolution has consensus.
Do all reputable biologists agree that evolution is a fact or does believing evolution is a fact make a  biologist reputable?  How many names on a petition does it take to prove a scientific theory?  One of the problems with "consensus" on evolution is that it doesn't involve everyone, those who disagree are excluded. Religious people come up with the same kind of reasoning. For instance, how could a million Hindu's be wrong? This implies that number of believers proves the belief system.  How many Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, or Evolutionists does it take to make something true? What is odd, is that supposedly rational, intelligent, critically thinking scientists don't recognize this, but that is because their belief system is not based on science. Science isn't built on consensus; it is built on the scientific method, observation and experimentation, which should not allow for a hypothesis to pass for a fact.
Evolution has never had consensus. For evolutionists however, evolution has been a "fact" for over a century, and wouldn't you know it, all evolutionists agree it's a fact.  It doesn't matter that there are many scientists who for scientific reasons, don't agree that evolution is an established fact. Consensus on evolution is imaginary.
8. Peer Review filters out evolution's bad ideas.
If an idea makes evolutionary sense and doesn't violate the evolutionary paradigm it passes peer review. How many bad ideas, mistakes and deceptions make it through the evolutionary peer review screen? Evolutionists would like you to believe that the peer review filters out evolutionary bad ideas, but if the peers are chosen based on their adherence to a belief system, then peer review would not filter out ideas based on that belief. This can be seen most clearly in evolutionary stories about ancestry and evolutionary development that pass through peer review seemingly without question or examination. Adherence to evolution does however filter out good ideas if they suggest that evolution might not be true or intelligent design is an acceptable alternative. That is, if your ideas don't fit the predetermined template, they will be rejected.

This has forced many scientists to create their own peer reviewed publications, which attempt to critically examine all that science is currently showing us, rather than attempt to force it into a predetermined template. Evolutionists view these as illegitimate. Creationists, who have their own template, welcome these ideas, because they demonstrate that the scientific facts agree with the Creation template far better than the one presented by Evolution. The facts need to be force fitted into the Evolutionary template, where they seem to fall naturally into the Creationist one. This is why evolutionary peer review is failing science.

There are so many bad ideas in evolutionary literature, peer review simply can't catch them all.
9. Victory in the courts equals victory in the lab.
Quite often evolutionists will cite court battles as evidence that evolution should be the only view presented by the education system. Winning a court battle, is however not the same as demonstrating a scientific fact though observation and experiment.  Legal decisions are based on the law, not on science. The law in the United States and in many other countries will not allow for government to support a religion. That is where evolutionists get their victories. Creationism, and intelligent design both point to a creator. Therefore any ideas that are seen to support them are "religious" and the government is forced to reject or ignore those ideas on legal grounds. Evolution on the other hand is technically not "religious" since it does not recognize the existence of a supernatural being.  So evolution wins in the courts because is not religious, rather than because science can be rigorously used to support it. Why do evolutionists go to the lawyers and judges to win their science battles?

Let the battle occur in the science labs and classrooms, where it should be taking place.  Contrary to what the evolutionists claim, its not creation or intelligent design that's loosing in the courtroom, it's schools that are being sued. After all, it's the school boards, parents and the kids in public schools who want the alternatives to be taught and the problems with evolution to be exposed who are getting defeated by the evolutionists.  They want to control the education of your kids so they can indoctrinate them with their materialistic philosophy. And they believe that you're just to stupid to know evolution is a fact.
10. Belief in evolution has no detrimental side effects. The holocaust and communism are two detrimental effects that come to mind immediately. How many millions have to die before you realize that there might be a problem? Actually evolution makes no judgment calls on these types of events since survival of the fittest is an axiom. When one person kills another or when one race destroys another, that's survival of the fittest.  Belief in evolution cannot object to any action because there is no moral standard.

Evolutionists sometimes point out that the church is not guiltless. They point out events such as the inquisition and the crusades and has a very violent and immoral history.  Today we have suicide bombers, genocide in the Sudan and terrorism world wide in the name of Allah. So, they point out that religion not only produces similar results, but that religious people do it in the name of a god or religion and believe this justifies their actions.  Religion, they claim, must be worse, because people believe that they are doing the will of God.

This view is incorrect. The reason for all the ills, wrongs and evils in this world is due to sin. The Bible, not evolution, defines sin. Those who reject God and accept evolution don't have a moral standard or definition of good and bad that extends beyond thier cultural beleifs. Why is somthing bad, wrong or evil? The evolutionary answer is "Because I don't like it." or "Everyone agrees its wrong." They often attempt to justify moral actions by their evolutionary expediency. Hence, the holocaust, communism, abortion, euthanasia, eugenics etc.  The excuse given is that these things come from something inside the individual, not from a religious book, or a belief in God. Therefore they claim that these things are not connected with evolution or atheism, but they say that the atrocities in the name of religion or God have a direct connection with the Bible.

But the fact is that, God's Word condemns these actions, no matter who is doing them. The holocaust, communism, the crusades and the inquisition all stem from human nature, i.e. something inside ourselves.  And that "something inside ourselves" comes from?  Evolution does not define morality as anything more than a chemical reaction. The Bible does define morality.  We know that all those things are wrong because God's Word tells us they are wrong. None of those things happened because God commanded it or His Word demanded it, but through the rejection of his Word or making his Word secondary to an earthly authority. This leaves the door wide open.

Some people say, "I prefer to define my own morality." That is a standard belief within evolutionary thought. However this also a problem. Morality can't come from within the individual. It has to be a standard that exists separate from the individual. Otherwise morality becomes nothing more than an individual choice and allows each person to justify whatever "evil" or "good" they desire. Relegating morality to society only causes good and evil to be defined by the ones in power.  Rejection of God's Word is what allows a leader to starve a million people, send them to a holy war, or for a scientist to accept human cloning and eugenics, or even for a sniper to kill an abortion doctor.  Morality is not a smorgasbord, you don't pick what you like and ignore what elements you dislike. The evils of the church come from rejecting God's Word and the atrocities connected with atheism and evolution also come from a rejection of Gods Word.

Evolution, begins with a rejection of God's Word. Therefore there is nothing to counter the natural tendency we all possess to do wrong and justify doing wrong.


Beautifully presented!  Evident Creation - not just a guy with a talent for art and a blog but a thinking man's Creationist.  Then again, a thinking man SHOULD be a Creationist or at the very least, an Intelligent Design advocate who is not quite ready to put a label to the Designer.


Human Ape said...

"Evolution, begins with a rejection of God's Word."

Darwin, and the thousands of biologists who came after Darwin, were only interested in finding the truth. The fact that evolutionary biology has religious implications is your problem. Scientists don't care about your childish superstitions.

Hawkeye® said...

Another good article.

Best regards...

Human Ape,
Your moniker is very apropos. Your IQ seems to be on par with that of an ape.

Anonymous said...

Tsk seems Radar's desperation is contagious. Now Hawkeye's getting nasty too.

Sorry guys, all this tough words don't make creationism true. Live with it.

Jon Woolf said...

Very sad, Radar. When I first found this blog, you seemed like you might possibly be a worthy sparring-partner. But since then you've deteriorated drastically, and these last few posts have been just pitiful. All allegations and accusations, and no evidence at all. Can't you and your creationist sources ever, you know, address the facts?

Oh wait, you have tried to do that, and failed repeatedly. My mistake. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you think your only remaining option is to spray so many insults around that we evolution-defenders get disgusted and leave.