Cosmology: “In The Beginining” Controversy

In honor of Stephen Hawking’s 70thbirthday a conference was held.  And in this conference, there were two proposals posed being featured and one of which posed the greatest threat to the existing ‘models’ in cosmology.  You see, back in the 1970’s there was an uproar over a book called; “God and the Astronomers” by astronomer Robert Jastrow.

What was the uproar about? In the book, astronomer Robert Jastrow suggested that the universe had a beginning and he was very surprised on how much opposition came from cosmologists as a result. This is because they knew fully well if the universe had a beginning, this would suggest it was created out of nothing and they found that to be implausible therefore leaving the door open for a creator.  So  secular cosmologists embraced the idea of an eternal universe or universes that have no beginning.

Not only was the conference honoring Stephen Hawking’s 70th birthday but also it was a conference that was trying to carefully explain the universe with a beginning while being concerned about making any inferences towards God being the creator. In New Scientist, “the universe is not eternal, resurrecting the thorny question of how to kick-start the cosmos without the hand of a supernatural creator.”

Stephen Hawking told his audience in a pre-recorded speech, “A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God,’   Sadly, Hawking is wrong, science doesn’t break for a creator, science has broken down for natural causes being the creator of the universe. Take the big bang ‘theory’ for an example, if it was true then scientists would be observing a chronological structure of different stages concerning galaxies development as one looks deeper into space. But like in biology, this hasn’t been the case, astronomers have discovered galaxies and stars that are more fully ‘evolved’ in a segment of distant space where it was thought to represent the early, immature universe. One such discovery was discovered not long ago, a cluster of galaxies known as CL J1449+0856.

Stephen Hawking likes to invoke the “M-theory” at the very core of his beliefs.  But calling “M” a theory is a bit misleading because currently M-Theory is really not a theory at all, rather it’s a collection of different ideas (stories) with no observational or experimental data. He also invokes physical laws as the origin for the beginning of the universe.

However…

“… physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.”  -Professor and creationist at Oxford, John Lennox

John is correct, giving natural laws such profound abilities is not science but merely a man-made story in attempt to replace an intelligent creator namely, God. Back to “in the beginning”, there is a reason why a proposal of this kind has come out despite many objections for suggesting similar things in the past. New Scientist states this about the current status about an eternal universe, “cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston explained last week, that hope has been gradually fading and may now be dead.”

Here are some of the reasons why these models have failed and considered to be “dead”

The “cosmic egg” model where the universe hatches out of an existing eternal state.  Last year, “Vilenkin and graduate student Audrey Mithani showed that the egg could not have existed forever after all, as quantum instabilities would force it to collapse after a finite amount of time (arxiv.org/abs/1110.4096).” 

The universe bouncing eternally in an organized state from expansion to contraction. This doesn’t fit the laws of the physical universe, because “disorder increases with time.”  So after each cycle the universe increases in chaos, so given the old universe time frame, it would have already reached maximum disorder.

Inflation with eternal life.  Extrapolated from Alan Guth’s 1981 inflation proposal where universes forming and inflating spontaneously forever and ever. Why does this model fail? Because equations still require a boundary in the past as pointed out by Vilenkin and Guth back in 2003.

No model of an eternal universe has been shown to work. New Scientist calls it a “Genesis Problem”. Science has not broken down, it’s as good as ever and it is confirming God’s word! What is breaking here are these man-made stories from unbelievers who are bent on disproving God.

Stephen Hawking Expands On His Theology

In his book, The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking claimed there is no need for a creator in order to explain the existence of the universe.  Recently he expanded his anti-realism theology by attacking the existence of heaven, calling it a “fairytale.” There is a reason why Stephen is becoming more public with his views about Christianity. He has Lou Gehrig’s Disease and back in 2009, he was taken to the hospital in a “very ill” condition which most likely got him to think more about his views about the after life. It’s a pretty common thing with people who are nearing the end of their lives. He most likely also believes the design of his body is unfair if intelligence was responsible and no way would a Creator would left him in such a state.

Hawking told the Guardian

“In the interview, Hawking rejected the notion of life beyond death and emphasised the need to fulfil our potential on Earth by making good use of our lives. In answer to a question on how we should live, he said, simply: “We should seek the greatest value of our action. In answering another, he wrote of the beauty of science, such as the exquisite double helix of DNA in biology, or the fundamental equations of physics.”

“Hawking responded to questions posed by the Guardian and a reader in advance of a lecture tomorrow at the Google Zeitgeist meeting in London, in which he will address the question: “Why are we here?” “In the talk, he will argue that tiny quantum fluctuations in the very early universe became the seeds from which galaxies, stars, and ultimately human life emerged. “Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in,” he said.”

It is interesting to note, Hawking considers the brain like a computer that stops working when its components fail. Nathan Heflick, a psychology doctoral student at the University of Florida, says that is the reason why he rejects religion. However, if you compare yourself to a machine, a computer like every other machine ever made was created by intelligence with a purpose, rather than by an accident guided by a mindless process!

The whole notion that something can be created out of nothing is “theology” because for one thing, Hawking or any secular scientist would not believe it is possible to create water out of nothing. So why then would he believe the universe was created out of nothing with 96 percent of its reality that cannot be seen nor hasn’t been directly detected and not only that but allege an untestable idea, other universes? Hawking knows there had to have been a beginning somewhere no matter how many universes you believe are out there. M-theory is just a collection of various unconfirmed ideas which like many other scientists in the world of anti-realism, bluff on the significance of their explanation.

Some may wonder why a cosmologist know any better about a theology question than those of a theologian when he doesn’t really have any hard evidence with his own reasoning? He is entitled to his opinion but it’s wrong! Cosmologists are dealing with more guess work than ever before, physics used to be cut and dry but with anti-realism being invoked, it’s become more and more complex with a blur getting darker and darker just like the rest of the theories based on a mindless process.

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!