Stephen Hawking’s New Book Falls Into Anti-Realism

The Grand Design sounds more like a creationist or ID book rather than a consequence of the law of gravity. With this new book, Hawking decided to abandoned his hope in mankind’s ability to come up with a “theory of everything” as promised in A Brief History of Time. Three decades ago, he stated there was a fifty per cent chance of completing a “theory of everything” by 2000 but to no avail. His prediction wasn’t based on a possible acceptance of a creator, rather he used “God” as a metaphor because the vast majority of the population are theists.

The Grand Design has caught the attention of the mainstream media where it’s been hyped up and even my local newspaper picked up the story from the Associated Press. In one of the reviews about his new book, New Scientist says…

M-theory in either sense is far from complete. But that doesn’t stop the authors from asserting that it explains the mysteries of existence: why there is something rather than nothing, why this set of laws and not another, and why we exist at all. According to Hawking, enough is known about M-theory to see that God is not needed to answer these questions. Instead, string theory points to the existence of a multiverse, and this multiverse coupled with anthropic reasoning will suffice. Personally, I am doubtful.”

Take life. We are lucky to be alive. Imagine all the ways physics might have precluded life: gravity could have been stronger, electrons could have been as big as basketballs and so on. Does this intuitive “luck” warrant the postulation of God? No. Does it warrant the postulation of an infinity of universes? The authors and many others think so. In the absence of theory, though, this is nothing more than a hunch doomed – until we start watching universes come into being – to remain untested and untestable. The lesson isn’t that we face a dilemma between God and the multiverse, but that we shouldn’t go off the rails at the first sign of coincidences.”

This review is refreshing and more realistic than other publications that I have seen. The Grand Design falls into anti-realism where there are multiple independent views of reality which are considered possible, each one model-dependent without providing an example of reality. A theory for everything could also fit into anti-realism as well. This is what I call storytelling or science fiction!

Hawkings looks even more lost as he tries to explain away God being the creator. The problem with something being created out of nothing defies the laws of physics. So he did what Darwinian evolution does, you start out with something and go from there. Hawkings claims there was pre-existing gravity and a multi-universe instead of nothing and this is his vain imagination is why he argues against God being the Creator. Where did the laws of nature come from? Where did gravity come from? To suggest pre-existing material for natural evolving purposes that is eternal would be going against the law of entropy!

Updated September 17, 2010: From the Wallstreet Journal

Krauss, a cosmologist, is director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University writes…

“It appears that the dominant energy in our universe doesn’t reside in normal matter, or even mysterious dark matter. Rather, it is located in a much more mysterious form of energy in empty space. Figuring out why empty space has energy is perhaps the biggest mystery in physics and cosmology today.”

“The existence of this energy, called dark energy, has another consequence: It changes the picture so that knowing the geometry of the universe is no longer enough to determine its future. While this may be a disappointment, the existence of dark energy and a flat universe has profound implications for those of us who suspected the universe might arise from nothing.”

“Why? Because if you add up the total energy of a flat universe, the result is precisely zero…Think about it: If our universe arose spontaneously from nothing at all, one might predict that its total energy should be zero.”

There is no way that secular scientists or other people in general would believe that thunderstorms are created out of nothing with zero energy popping out of empty spaces, nor mountains, nor the grass that grows on our lawns! Stephen Hawking and Krauss alike are fools professing himself to be wise as they sink deeper into anti-realism of absurdity which defies natural laws which they profess to believe in while also denying the ever growing evidence for a Universe created by God which we as Christians rejoice in!


Living Things Are Designed With Advanced Physics

Could plants depend on quantum mechanics to convert solar energy to energy in which living organisms are able to use? In a new study in Nature, this is exactly what they are saying…

“It is common knowledge that plants, algae and certain bacteria use photosynthesis to convert solar energy into a form that can be used by the organisms to live and reproduce.  But what is less well known is that the efficiency of photosynthesis might depend in part on quantum-mechanical processes.”

“On page 644 of this issue, Collini et al.2 report evidence suggesting that a process known as quantum coherence ‘wires’ together distant molecules in the light-harvesting apparatus of marine cryptophyte algae.  This is the first time that this phenomenon has been observed in photosynthetic proteins at room temperature, rather than at much lower temperatures, bolstering the idea that quantum coherence influences light harvesting in vivo.”

Post-it notes and other stickers have a certain amount of adhesive to bond. Beetles employ a similar concept in order to stick to the leaves. They are amazing, they can cling to leaves with a force 100 times their own weight and then detach themselves quickly. Engineers at Cornell, are trying to create prototype adhesive similar to that of the beetle as mentioned in science daily

“The rapid adhesion mechanism could lead to such applications as shoes or gloves that stick and unstick to walls, or Post-it-like notes that can bear loads, according to Paul Steen, professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering, who invented the device with Michael Vogel, a former postdoctoral associate.”

Physicist James Clerk Maxwell who lived in the 19th-century had a vision that the 2nd law of Second Law of Thermodynamics could be overcome by inserting a intelligence…PNAS reported that bacteria could be employed to harness random Brownian motion to turn gears…

“The laws of thermodynamics prohibit extraction of useful work from the Brownian motion of molecules or particles in systems at equilibrium (nonexistence of a perpetuum mobile of the second kind or Maxwell demon).  When, however, such randomly moving objects interact with certain types of time-varying external potentials or with asymmetric geometrical obstacles under nonequilibrium conditions, their motions can be “rectified” and made directional.”

“This phenomenon, first considered by Smoluchowski and then analyzed in detail by Feynman, underlies the operation of so-called Brownian ratchets and motors.  The examples of biological “Brownian motors” include kinesin and myosin proteins converting chemical energy into directed motion on microtubules, and bacteria propelling themselves in viscous fluid owing to the “asymmetry”/chirality of flagellar rotation.”

This is where evolutionists always commit a fallacy when it comes to these observations…For example, we have the ability to turn trash into electricity and heat by using a machine that employs gasification, a process that overall pollutes less than combustion.

Does this way of harnessing energy appear natural? We can use different types of fuels for our cars, one being of course gas, does this appear natural? We can overcome the second law of thermodynamics by doing goal directed work which can harness the energy for other uses.

It’s the same way with ATP synthase motors and other things like the flagella in the microscopic world which can also harness energy. There is nothing natural about this either as it too overcomes the 2nd law of thermodynamics! These living organisms are not “deciding” to set goals and work toward achieving them.

It’s also not intelligent agents at work deciding which direction to take the living creatures like many in the modern intelligent design movement would like to suggest either. The inference of overcoming the 2nd law is no doubt design, but not by evolution (an unthinking process which sets no goals) either but by a structure created by God.

Darwinian Evolution Getting Into Religion?

Let’s see, they keep telling us that science is science, and religion is religion, Stephen Jay Gould stated that science would stay out of religion if religion stayed out of science? Does this mean science by their definition is now unto religion?

Elizabeth Culotta wrote an article in science about the origin of religion using the evolutionary framework.

“How and when did religion arise? In the 11th essay in Science’s series in honor of the Year of Darwin, Elizabeth Culotta explores the human propensity to believe in unseen deities. No consensus yet exists among scientists, but potential answers are emerging from both the archaeological record and studies of the mind itself. Some researchers, exploring religion’s effects in society, suggest that it may boost fitness by promoting cooperative behavior.”

“And in the past 15 years, a growing number of researchers have followed Darwin’s lead and explored the hypothesis that religion springs naturally from the normal workings of the human mind. This new field, the cognitive science of religion, draws on psychology, anthropology, and neuroscience to understand the mental building blocks of religious thought.”

Now they have sociologists who are studying the propensity of humans to explain things when they happen. Also, psychologists investigating “theory of mind” explanations that compare mental states with others and evolutionary anthropologists consider the social aspects of sharing beliefs in gods to develop social cohesion. Elizabeth admits there are huge gaps when it comes to this part of evolution concerning the origin of religion.

Don’t fall for this story line, it’s explanation of nature is highly flawed let alone trying to explain where the belief in God comes from. This study has no evidence whatsoever that religion or Christianity comes from evolution, it’s only in their imagination which is confined to a certain framework evoked on the population known to be “evolution.”

The Progress Of A Story Concerning Human Evolution

There are many convoluted ideas concerning this story with much confusion which has sprung some controversy within evolutionary circles. Although I believe evolutionists like mysteries to create various stories with rather than saying factually, it was created by God.

Evolution with many of it’s predictions being faulty which some have been shown in this blog, while trying to fill in the gaps, they tend to open up more gaps so as a result, the mysteriousness of evolution will always be there to their delight.

In a publication called; Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences Vol. 37: 67-92, we find the latest progress of the story concerning human evolution. Does the evidence match with the fossil record? Are scientists agreeing on the big picture? Readers are left for answering these questions themselves.

But what it does say is this…

“Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens.  We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis.”

“We also point to heterogeneity among “early African Homo erectus,” and the lack of apomorphies [traits restricted to a single species] linking these fossils to the Asian Homo erectus group, a cohesive regional clade that shows some internal variation, including brain size increase over time.  The first truly cosmopolitan Homo species is Homo heidelbergensis, known from Africa, Europe, and China following 600 kyr ago.”

“One species sympatric with it included the >500-kyr-old Sima de los Huesos fossils from Spain, clearly distinct from Homo heidelbergensis and the oldest hominids assignable to the clade additionally containing Homo neanderthalensis.”

“This clade also shows evidence of brain size expansion with time; but although Homo neanderthalensis had a large brain, it left no unequivocal evidence of the symbolic consciousness that makes our species unique.  Homo sapiens clearly originated in Africa, where it existed as a physical entity before it began (also in that continent) to show the first stirrings of symbolism.”

“Most likely, the biological underpinnings of symbolic consciousness were exaptively acquired [i.e., co-opted from other bodily changes] in the radical developmental reorganization that gave rise to the highly characteristic osteological structure of Homo sapiens, but lay fallow for tens of thousands of years before being “discovered” by a cultural stimulus, plausibly the invention of language.”

Hominid taxonomy is the focus along with getting bogged down with classifications. Human-primate taxonomy has undergone major changes and repeated reversals, with those who want large inclusive categories vs. those who  rather have tighter organization instead.

As a result, with more discoveries of fossils has flared up major controversy among those two groups. A new paradigm about human evolution emerged which revised hominid taxonomy into a more simple form of three species.

So it’s interesting to note, we see one year, a plethora of fossils each have their own genus; then the  next year, they are all lumped into a “catch-all” category called Homo erectus, which is defined as everything in between bipedal apes and modern humans.

Talk about altering a tale using vast amounts of uncertainty in order to attempt to fill in the gaps with so much speculation. Plus faith in chance miracles in which natural selection uses to make unthinking specialized choices concerning survival of the fittest.

Militant Athesist Richard Dawkins Makes An Astonishing Admission

A man who is well known for fighting against the existence of God, donated 9,000 dollars for a bus sign that says; “probably no God,” and who has written books in promoting his viewpoint like “The God Delusion” has made an astonishing admission. During a second debate with John Lennox at Oxford’s Natural History Museum. Dawkins states as recorded in The Spectator

“A serious case could be made for a deistic God.” Below was the first debate between these two men on six major issues in Dawkin’s book “The God Delusion.”

Getting back to the admission from the latest debate, which was surprising to say the least. It was no doubt a blow to his fan base and other admirers of his like PZ Meyers. Militant atheists generally don’t want to believe there could be a serious case for God. But rather they look down at most theists (while admiring the few who endorse evolution).

Militant atheists tend to believe that Christians are insane for making a case involving the existence of God and His creation. Most likely damage control by atheists will be used claiming that the phrase meant only “could” which wouldn’t mean there is serious case.

Sadly, his opponent  John Lennox did not follow up on that statement in the debate, he let Dawkins off the hook…

“Instead, Dawkins was able to move the debate onto a specific attack on Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus, which is a very different argument and obscured the central point of contention – the claim that science had buried God.

The fact that Dawkins now appears to be so reluctant publicly to defend his own position on his own territory of scientific rationalism – and indeed, even to have shifted his ground – is a tribute above all to the man he was debating once again on Tuesday evening.” The Spectator.

Origins has been the most problematic hypothesis in evolution. If naturalism is correct then it caused events by accident, which means something can be created out of nothing. Defying the laws of physics is basically considered “magic” by militant atheists.

However, since it has to do with evolution being able to have a beginning because without a beginning the hypothesis of naturalism would be impossible. So the likes of Richard Dawkins and others accept the idea or are sometimes open to other ideas such as another gap where non-humans created our universe as stated below to a reporter…

“Dawkins told me that, rather than believing in God, he was more receptive to the theory that life on earth had indeed been created by a governing intelligence – but one which had resided on another planet.

Leave aside the question of where that extra-terrestrial intelligence had itself come from, is it not remarkable that the arch-apostle of reason finds the concept of God more unlikely as an explanation of the universe than the existence and plenipotentiary power of extra-terrestrial little green men?”

Same problem if you believe in alien life forms being responsible for creating our solar system or earth. The alleged aliens have origins too, so where did they come from? Richard Dawkins knows fully well something cannot be created out of nothing and his rebellious nature to deny God, and His authority he submits himself to storytelling (such as alien life forms which haven’t been proven) with no viable scientific answers.