Stephen Hawking on Discovery: No Need For A Creator To Explain The Universe
By on August 2nd, 2011

When someone famous speaks, a lot of people listen; when Stephen Hawking speaks, everyone listens. The brilliant scientist is famous to the public for his record smashing book, A brief history of time’, and for the disease he’s afflicted with. In the science community, however, he’s famous for being the pioneer in black hole physics and for showing that the universe will have a singularity beginning, consistent with Einstein’s laws of general relativity. Lately, he’s been in the news for his outspoken atheistic views on the Universe and whether there needs to be a creator.

Stephen Hawking: The man with the golden words and captive audience

Discovery’s newest show and Hawking’s history

The latest in line of such comments is his interview on the new program on Discovery Channel called Curiosity’. It’s a major program, originally produced by the BBC, and it starts off with Hawking answering the question Is There A Creator?’ on August 7th. Using a speech synthesizer like always, Hawking, who’s been paralysed by the Motor Neuron Disease, goes bullish and gives straight answers, stating that there is no need for a Creator for the Universe to exist as it is. The show ‘Curiosity‘ intends to answer life’s greatest questions on fields as diverse as space and mp3 players – life’s most fascinating mysteries, as Discovery puts it.

The Grand Design Cover page

Hawking faced a lot of criticism from the faithful when his book The Grand Design’, co-authored with physicist Leonard Mlodinow, was published late last year. The book essentially says that science is capable of explaining the structure of the Universe and there need not be a supernatural entity needed to explain anything. (I’d personally recommend the book as a well-written popular science book, readable by anyone and of any faith liberal enough to take in the facts of modern science.) Although not directly against beliefs and faiths, the book does touch upon many metaphysical issues and, when even faint disagreements with religious beliefs are deemed shrill, this was always going to ruffle feathers. Later on, early this year, Hawking said that Heaven was a fairy tale.

The motive to start off the Discovery series with Hawking is clear Hawking gets attention and the question always gets an audience. No, the program is not on atheism or religion, but on science. Hawking passionately says:

I believe the discovery of these laws [laws of physics] is mankind’s greatest achievement.

A short interview: An excerpt

Hawking previously did a short interview with USA Today and here are a few questions and Hawking’s answers:

Interviewer: First, we wonder if you could comment on why you are tackling the existence of God question?

Hawking:  I think Science can explain the Universe without the need for God.

Interviewer: What problems you are working on now, and what do you see as the big questions in theoretical physics?

Hawking:  I’m working on the question, why is there something rather than nothing, why are the laws of physics what they are.

The series is about science and, going by Discovery’s and BBC’s track record, it should be a wonderful series. Do not miss the show named after man’s greatest treasure  - Curiosity.

Tags:
Author: Debjyoti Bardhan Google Profile for Debjyoti Bardhan
Is a science geek, currently pursuing some sort of a degree (called a PhD) in Physics at TIFR, Mumbai. An enthusiastic but useless amateur photographer, his most favourite activity is simply lazing around. He is interested in all things interesting and scientific.

Debjyoti Bardhan has written and can be contacted at debjyoti@techie-buzz.com.
  • Pingback: Stephen Hawking on Discovery: No Need For A Creator To Explain The Universe « Feeds « Theology of Ministry

  • Lbrewer42

    Why is it that true “science” – defined as derivin working hypothesis based on OBSERVATION and collection of data – is being bestowed upon a THEORETICAL physicist’s works? Fame maybe?

    Whether a person believes in/wants to believe in God or not is not the point of this post. The problem is that the things Hawkings proposals are, by his own definition, just theories. And some of these theories are built upon other theories he has come up with. in turn, these theories are based upon other theories he has proposes.

    So when does it end? This is not science. After reading his books, it amazes me the height to which his theoretical approach is accepted/taken as fact so more theories can be based upon them. Many times in his books he dismisses scientific laws (such as the Law of Entropy) when it suits his ideas. And yet, in the same work, he will cling to the same law to support his thinking on that specific part of his theory. Granted, in his writings he will say things akin to “If we can…” and then states a proposal, but he does not go back to this self-imposed supposition, but instead will build upon his result of using the supposition in order to come up with more and more theories.

    Any person, nowadays, who has not had the status that Hawkings has would be ridiculed for such a non-scientific approach. Now it is also true that Hawkings states he is a THEORETICAL physicist, which means he realizes what he is doing is THEORY. But the average person is not intelligent enough to divorce their respect for the man and the fact that his theories do not reflect true science despite his intelligence/position.

    Just b/c the kernal of the original theory had some (?) true science to back it does not make a third and 4th generation theory that is derived from the original kernal a fact! We are not supposed to be in the Dark Ages anymore. But as time goes on, the time honored scientific method is, again, being tossed away at the expense of popularity and individual desires.

    Ad hominem responses only show ignorance.

    • Debjyoti Bardhan

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory Please read. Theoretical physicists use this definition.

      • Lbrewer42

        Thank you, and I am well aware of this information. My point, and I am sorry if I was not clear on this, is that ideas developed by this revered man are taken by the general public and media as if it is scientific fact.

        I hear people say, “Well Steven Hawkings says….” without ever coming back to the fact that what he proposes is theory. They build upon his theories without knowing they are simply adding to an idea, and not contributing to facts (depending on whether his theories actually prove to be true sometime).

        As in the article above:
        “Interviewer: First, we wonder if you could comment on why you are tackling the existence of God question?

        Hawking: I think Science can explain the Universe without the need for God.”

        Hawking shows he has an agenda – which is OK for a theoretical scientist. However, starting with an agenda is not true science and does not provide actual, factual evidence. If Hawkings was not a theoretical scientist, his answer to the interviewer would have been, “I am seeking knowledge as to the origins of the universe (and divorcing my personal beliefs from the study). Unfortunately, the media and the general populace take his models, etc. as actual, factual science/proof.

        For objectivity – which is the basis of true science without an agenda – the media needs emphasize the theoretical aspect of his work – which they do not. The media always applauds Hawking’s work without pointing out the vary nature of what he does is simply a handful of ideas he continues to build upon, He does this by bending/ignoring/breaking some of the laws we can observe – which is OK for a theorist saying “What if?” Sometimes he admits doing this and at other times he simply forgets (?) to mention this. Since he builds theories, the farther the ideas go from the original base, the less substantial they may become.

        Please realize I am in no way saying Hawking’s theoretical works are not important ideas – for what is mankind without imagination and fresh ideas? It is only through seeking ideas and models we eventually sort out the truth from error. Bohr put us on the right track but we were very wrong for years with his model.

        My main problem is that in 100 years history might see us as an agenda-driven Dark Ages similar to the way we view those who ignored the heliocentric theory of the solar system. The basis is somewhat the same! The heliocentric theory was ignored b/c:
        1. authority figures of the day theorized otherwise,
        2. the theories were pushed as absolute truth,
        3. the populace becomes ignorant by following the revered peoples’ theories as absolute truth.

        I enjoy seeing what Hawkings comes up with. I just wish the record would show our media and populace handle his findings in a more legitimate fashion.

        • Steve060688

          Are you serious? Dark ages? Wow. Alot of his theories have been proven. Noone is being brainwashed and there is no conspiracy. We dont worship stephen hawking, unlike the church. He is not an authority; he is just a scientist like Einstein.

        • Debjyoti Bardhan

          The scenario is simple – science comes up with explanations within a consistent framework that increasingly shows that everything can be explained without any further drastic assumption. Further, the concept of a Creator immediately begs the question of where he came from and how he made the Universe as it is. This is, thus, a no-explanation, just our non-understanding to a higher level.
          Further, you still have not understood the meaning of a scientific theory. A scientific theory is a framework of consistent assertions, backed up by solid facts and experimental evidence that can not only explain natural phenomena, but also predict new ones. Further, every theory has to be falsifiable. I must be able to prove a theory wrong and the theory has to survive that test. God, unfortunately, as a theory, has failed miserably. To put it out of a theoretical framework of testing seems to be the only way to save the concept, which, for obvious reasons, is not desirable to many.

          • Lbrewer42

            The scenario is not as simple as you have mentioned! That is the point of my original post.

            I quote part of what you wrote:
            “a scientific theory is a framework of consistent assertions backed up by solid facts and experimental evidence that can not only explain natural phenomena, but also predict new ones.”

            I agree totally, and understand this statement. However, the focus, again, comes back to dividing theory from fact.

            A first-generation, experimentally-backed theory can be used to derive 2nd generation HYPTOTHETICAL theories (redundancy much) that must be proven by experimentation in order to be of the same scientific status as the first-generation theories from which they are derived.

            A better way of saying this is that a first-generation, experimentally-backed theory can lead us to new hypothetical avenues of research for experimentation in order to find futher scientific truth. However, until these 2nd-generation ideas can be experimentally proven, they remain theories with only a partial basis in scientific fact.

            When Hawkins bases his theories on theoretical subjects (such as theoretical P-Branes or the theoretical spontaneous massive boson vector breakdowns along the event horizons of black holes, etc.) media sources dealing with these issues of this nature normally fail to emphasize the nature of these ideas are not factual since they have not been observed anywhere except in a very educated man’s thinking processes.

            As a small aside here, Hawkings came up with the spontaneous massive boson vector breakdown along a black hole’s event horizon before science had ever actually proven the existence of an black hole, let alone whether or not a black hole had a definite event horizon where these particle would spontaneously break down.

            It was not for quite a few years after Hawking had theorized the existence of black holes that his theory was proven to be fact by the observation of an actual black hole. I am not sure as to the status of 2nd-generation theories of the event horizon has been established as an actual, factual area/division and/or if the 3rd-generation theory of particle breakdowns spontaneously occurring at these (hypothetical, though seemingly logical with what factual knowledge is currently at our disposal) locations have been proven factual. Is it possible these ideas will be proven fact someday? Yes. However, they might also prove false. So only the first-generation part of the entire theory is valid and the secondary/tertiary offspring should be treated/viewed/adamantly stated as being hypothetical.

            I know many people who, upon hearing of the actual discovery of a black hole were stunned b/c they had always taken it for granted that black holes were fact – especially since it was Hawkins who came up with the idea! There were movies about black holes, sci fi productions loved to use them, et cetera. But I would venture to say the majority of people had been led to believe black holes were fact long before they were proven to be so.

            I have no doubt that upon the airing of this show, it will be said Stephen Hawkings has proven…

            However, this will not be the case. He has theories which he has derived from thought and reasoning which will support a point of view he has been seeking to find a way to achieve. The basis of his first (and maybe second, etc?) theories may be based upon experimental, scientific facts. However, unless he has the ability to bend space and time, experimental science over these issues cannot be conducted. Hence the ideas will only be ideas. When we one day have a better understanding of the nature of matter, time, space, etc., there may be another, future scientist who will have better ideas and be able to prove his theories to a deeper level. I only hope that by this time the people will be able to understand the division between what can be called fact and what is just theory. If they have reached this point, I do suspect they will look back at our time and say how uneducated we were b/c we did not understand how to differentiate between fact and theory) or we ignored it.

            Yes, it may impact on some peoples’ egos to hear a contemporary relate us to the dark ages. But the fact is that today we see much blurring of the lines between fact and theory in many areas.

            Also, if you will review my first post you will find I was trying to point that I did my post was not trying to address the main theme of Hawkin’s program that will be aired — as to whether a person wants to believe in God or not. So please do not keep bringing the discussion back to this topic.

      • teaj

        great now I have to dodge athiest fags outside of college.

  • Pingback: More State Spacey « Simple Country Physicist

  • Lbrewer42

    Please be careful to stay on track here. I did not accuse anyone of worship – your response appears to show you have taken personal offense at some level and have lashed out with an accusation (implying an emotional motivation behind your response that is almost akin to an ad hominem posiition).

    BTW Why mention a church? And, just so you know, I do not see any church as an authority.

    Please re-read my statement to show the true nature of what I was saying is that the mass media rarely puts enough emphasis on the theoretical nature of this man’s work and contributions. Notice I said that his contributions have great value.

    The dark ages comment is pointed at the fact that the media is not doing their job to report he precise nature of what Hawkings does. Hopefully, in the future, people will have come to a point they will not, intellectually, miss this point.

    As another person posting has said, some of Hawkins IDEAS have been proven true. Objectivity demands the disciplines of factual science and theoretical science be made apparent anytime theories are presented so as not to lead others down a wrong path which MAY later prove to be unsound. The current, mainstream media does not have a good record in this area. Whether they think the masses do not care, don’t need to know, or? I do not pretend to know why this job is not done. I just am hoping future generations will be educated enough to be able to tell the difference. Mankind is always held back when the lines between fact and theory are blurred.

  • Julio

    Then pay attention to when Stephen is talking about “What if”, or starts pushing ideas. The dialog is thought out carefully, believe me. As a screenwriter, I can tell you everything you hear during programing is thought out. Stephen’s thoughts that are being read as dialog, often goes from science facts to obvious theory. They blended fact with fiction and they are never called on it. They should be ashamed. They want you to have faith that they’re right. Sounds familiar?

    • Debjyoti Bardhan

      So what you’re saying is that what Hawking or any celebrity might say on the show is according to a script written by someone or a group of people and is not really their own opinion?

    • Lbrewer42

      Believe me – I DO look out for when people say “What if?” This is one of the motivations behind my fist posting. I have read Hawkings work published over the years. And even within his own books, there are times that the “what if?” leads to another “what if?” from which a conclusion is made. This is OK in theoretical science. The problem is that we end up with a bunch of “what ifs” standing on the shoulders of other “what ifs” and most of the time I hear Hawkins quoted, people are taking what he has said as fact instead of theory.

      How far can a theoretical scientist go, making one assumption after another to base new assumptions upon, before a reality check forces us to take a step back and realize we have left the realm of true science so far behind that we can make anything we wish appear happen by our theorizing? Yes there have been times this genius has been shown to be true. Such as at the bottom of this webpage, while typing I see a title, “Cygnus X-1 is indeed a Black Hole; Stephen Hawking was wrong.”

      As to the medias role in things like this, do you emember the ozone hole of the last 2 decades in the 1900s? It was absolute FACT that this was growing/being affected by global warming. You could not turn on the TV without hearing about the ozone hole and the horrors we faced that were coming. You could not read a newspaper without some article about the ozone hole. It was used by global warming “scientists” as an absolute, undeniable, fact of global warming. However, it was only theoretical as to the cause/effects etc. The science of the situation was that we really had no idea if it had been there before, was caused by mankind, or was being hampered by us. Yet it was all over the media that this hole was proof of global warming and that the earth was going to get warmer and warmer until (1988, The Baltimore news made a statement that) by the year 2000 the climate along the Great Lakes areas was to have been so much more warmed up that palm trees could be grown in those areas.

      And then, in the year 2000, JUST when the chloroflourocarbons that were touted as being “scientifically proven” to be so disastrous to the ozone layer (another thing pushed over and over and over by the media) were supposed to reach the ozone layer… the hole disappeared!

      USA today was the only local paper I saw with any reference to it – and even their mention of it was a small article with a small satellite picture. You would think the ozone hole being closed would have been top headlines since it was such a big item used to worry the masses. But the problem is that the media had taken off with THEORIES and touted them as undeniable, scientific fact.

      Whether or not a person accepts global warming also is NOT the issue here. The issue is that the media takes theories and touts them as undeniable fact. And when the supposed science of the issues fail, hardly anything is said about the true science of the situation, and the issues is allowed to quietly fade into the background.

      I will be VERY surprised if, after this program airs, the manner of presentation of the material will be such that people will walk away saying “Hmmm, interesting theory, if we could only prove or disprove it by direct, scientific observation in order to know whether or not it is true.” Insetad, I have no doubt (especially college kids) will be making statements such as, “Well Hawkings proved…”

      I am sure the fundamental basis of Hawkins work is based upon actual facts, but the level of theory based upon theory, based upon theory is likely not to be the center of the presentation.

      As if to bolster what I have written, even as I type this, I note below on this webpage a note stating, “Stephen Hawking on Discovery: No Need For A Creator To Explain The Universe.”

      Objectivity in the media would be better served, and less misleading to the masses if this were stated as, “Stephen Hawking on Discovery THEORIZES: No Need For A Creator To Explain The Universe.”

      Again, I do not care if the title was “Stephen Hawkings THEORIZES the moon is made of green cheese.” The problem is that there is a blurring of fact from (educated) non-factual hypothesis.

  • Pingback: There have been enough crazies loose in the USA that this bunch makes me very nervous… « Under The LobsterScope

  • Rayburne F.

    have to question your statement above about Hawking’s humility. One who is spiritually dead and blind to God’s revelation of Himself in His written Word, the Bible, and in the Person of Jesus Christ , and who affirms the that heaven is a fairy tale cannot properly be called humble. If he concedes the possibility that he could be wrong about God’s existence, he also could be wrong about the bible. It is true that very intelligent people, even brilliant people, lack wisdom, but when God’s word says: The fool hath said in his heart there is no God” (Psalm 14:1), it means anyone who lives as if there is no God is a fool in the eyes of God, which is why God called the rich man a fool (Thou fool, this night thou soul shall be required of thee) who prided himself in his own self-sufficiency to store up wealth (I have grains a plenty stored up, soul take thine ease) . I (and many others) find it hard to call scientists “smart men” (in spite of their impressive academic credentials) who believe an eplosion (the Big bang) created this infinitely beautiful, complex and ordered universe from extremely dense matter the size of an electron (not even the size of a pin head) , especially when they were not there when this universe came into being and we have never seen an explosion produce order and complexity out of disorder and complexity. This is hardly my idea of wisdom, but should appropriately be called what it is–stupidity. I think it takes far more faith to believe this than to beleve that an infinitely WISE, ALL-KNOWING and ALL-Powerful and HOLY God spoke ithis universe and all that is in it into existence. There are serious problems with the Big Bang Theory despite its popularity among the scientific community.

    • Debjyoti Bardhan

      How much more science will you deny just to prove that ONE book written 2000 years ago by people, who knew next to nothing about the world around them, is right? Just saying that something is the “revealed word” doesn’t make it a jot true.
      Hawking has been proved wrong a number of times and he has accepted it gleefully. So has every scientist you’ve heard or not heard of. That is humility.
      Also, even if you think that science is rude, science or its proponents don’t care. This is the truth as far as we know now, built up by centuries of hard work and the occasional flares of inspiration. If saying what is true is not humble, then let scientists not be humble. Humility is an feeling inferior to truth.
      I feel more humility in the vastness of the Universe and our deep connection with it than due to some talking snake!

      I know that you’ll have an answer to what I’ve said and you’ll quote more passages from the Bible to “prove” your point, missing the point I am trying to make altogether. But, just for the sake of trying, let me say that refuting you or proving you wrong is the least of my duties here. Calling someone a fool just because the natural world works differently than what the Bible claims is not very wise. Just because scientists are finding out things that contradict your holy book and its writings doesn’t necessarily mean that the findings are wrong and the wisdom of the people working in science needs to be doubted. Of course, they can be wrong, but all the present evidence points to them being correct.

      • Lbrewer42

        Actually, whether or not someone wants to believe the Bible is up to them. Again, the problem prevalent here is that true, unadulterated science was thrown out the window quite some years ago. As an example, do an in depth study sometime on the “scientifically proven” carbon dating method. The problem is, again, theory was touted to the point it is accepted fact.

        This theory of dating (and it still is a theory) method working reliably relies TOTALLY on the amount of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere/ecosystem/environment having been the same throughout the time period it is claimed to be accurate for. Otherwise the ration of C12 to C14 in the time being tested cannot possibly be accurately dated. The very problem with all of this is the people who rely on the million year old results of C14-dating are the same people who theorize such events as a giant asteroid colliding with the earth globally impacted the earth’s environment enough to kill off the dinosaurs. So how did the C14 ratio stay perfectly constant during a time when the rest of everything on the earth was making changes -especially with global atmospheric/ecosystem killing/altering events like this asteroid taking place?

        It is interesting how results on living mollusks have revealed dates of thousands of years old, etc. However, these results are not commonly known/reported as objectivity demands. It is also interesting to note there have been times when dates not conforming to current models are thrown out and all dubbed as errors since they do not fit into the present paradigm.

        I believe a lot of motivation for current hypothesis being accepted as fact by the scientific community is due to the fact that monetary grants are much more readily doled out to those who produce results which coincide with the beliefs of non-scientific politicians. If a scientist does not follow current trains of thought, unfortunately, the individuality and “thinking outside the box” ends up without government $ to continue the work and, a lot of the time, ridicule is the main result.

        The Dark Ages comment I made previously can be seen by anyone wanting to pursue objective, true science. However, with the media’s treatment of theories, driven by agenda driven minds (not necessarily the scientists), it seems no one is willing to put in the leg work to find fact.

        BTW – Being brutally honest with constructive criticism – whether or not you agree to the person who made the last post concerning the Bible – your reply to him (I have no idea who he is), has hints of an ad hominem tone. You seem to take an emotional, and personal offense at someone who obviously does not agree with what you have cemented in your mind as being fact. This is a major hindrance to objectivity and the very scientific position which your postings imply you cling to. I am sure you are trying to make the best editorial column you can.

        A good deal more study into actually defining what theories the media dubs as science (and therefore has been accepted as fact) is a very eye-openeing experience. I highly recommend it.

  • Rayburne F.

    If Stephen Hawking concedes the possibility that he could be wrong about God’s existence, he also could be wrong about heaven being a fairy tale. A scientist may say: “I don’t believe in heaven,” but if he says, “Heaven doesn’t exist because I don’t believe in it,” he is going far beyond the limits of the microscope, telescope, etc. and is being very unscientific–which is why the opinion of one, even Stephen Hawking, who is spiritually dead and blind, even hostile to the truth of God according to scripture (Ephesians 2:1; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Romans 8:7) carries no weight with Bible-believing Christians (unless, of course, you are one of those who foolishly consider scientific opinion to be a greater authority than the inspiration and authority of scripture).

    Science has been wrong before on many things, as history shows. Most of the great scientists who pioneered “modern science” were believers in creation and the God of the Bible revealed in Jesus Christ, as history clearly shows (i.e Kelvin, Newton, Kepler, Maxwell,Boyle, Faraday, etc.). It is true that very intelligent people, even brilliant people, lack wisdom, but when God’s word says: The fool hath said in his heart there is no God” (Psalm 14:1), it means anyone who lives as if there is no God is a fool in the eyes of God, which is why God called the rich man a fool (Thou fool, this night thou soul shall be required of thee) who prided himself in his own self-sufficiency to store up wealth (I have grains a plenty stored up, soul take thine ease) . I (and many others) find it hard to call scientists “smart men” (in spite of their impressive academic credentials) who believe a “Big Bang” explosion (even an explosion superintended by aliens or a supernatural Creator God) created this infinitely beautiful, complex and ordered universe from extremely dense matter the size of an electron–approximately the size of a pin head (Who created it?) , especially when they were not there when this universe came into being and we have never seen an explosion produce order, beauty and complexity out of disorder and chaos.This is the real fairy tale. It takes far more faith to believe this than to beleve that an infinitely WISE, ALL-KNOWING and ALL-Powerful and HOLY God spoke ithis universe and all that is in it into existence. There are serious problems with the Big Bang Theory despite its popularity among the scientific community. God bless.

  • Rayburne F.

    Christians aren’t denying anything, especially science. The word “revealed”, as apl;ied to God’s Word, doesn’t mean it is not true either. Historical (origins) science cannot be observed, tested, repeated, falsified in a labatory no more than creation can. Evidence doesn’t exist by itself, but must be interpreted according to one’s world view or paradigm which one brings to bear on it, whether it be biblical creation/young earth or evolution/old earth. Those who believe the former interpret the evidence for the human genome differently and do not have any problem tracing the human race back to Adam and Eve. Hawking’s findings and those of evolutionists connected with the human genome studies do not carry any weight with Bible-believing Christians for the simple reason that they believe the evidence clearly shows evolution is a fairy tale and humans did not evolve from an assumed ancestor in common with chimpanzees. Dr. James Allan, Ph.D. in genetics from the University of Edinburgh, Scotland concluded that 150 billion forerunners of “modern man” would be required by evolution in order for natural selection to have taken place in the development of humans from an assumed ancestor in common with the chimpanzee. Where are all these forerunners or “intermediates” of the so-called human ancestry of man. We have several highly disputed intermediates at best. Yes, we all know: “Evolution is a fact is a fact and Christians ignore the evidence, right? I hope I didn’t ignore the evidence.
    I ( and other Christians who quoted Psalms 14:1( didn’t call anyone a fool. I simply gave you God’s declaration of who is really a fool according to Psalms 14:1 (he/she who says “there is no God”). Wrong assumption: the natural world does not work differently than what the Bible claims. This unsupported assertion assumes the General Theory of Evolution (GTE) to be true. There is no contradiction between the Bible and true science. Scientists who believe in special (supernatural) creation have the same evidence as evolutionists. The problem is not the evidence. But the conclusions reached on the basis of the interpretation of the evidence will be different according to what paradigm or world view they bring to bear on the interpretation of same–whether of biblical creation or GTE (“from the goo, through the zoo, to you; molecules to man evolution. Again, scientists are not finding out things that contradict the Bible–rather they claim they are finding out things that contradict the Bible based on their faith in evolution (and please don’t tell me they don’t have faith in same). All the evidence does not point to them being correct-again you are concluding that GTE is true and therefore the interpretation of the evidence by evolutionary scientists must also be true–a belief that many Christians reject on the basis of their interpretation of the evidence. As I indicated, it takes far more faith to believe a “Big Bang” explosion (even an explosion superintended by aliens or a supernatural Creator God) created this infinitely beautiful, complex and ordered universe from extremely dense matter the size of an electron–approximately the size of a pin head (Who created it?) , especially when they were not there when this universe came into being and we have never seen an explosion produce order, beauty and complexity out of disorder and chaos than to believe that an infinitely WISE, ALL-KNOWING and ALL-Powerful and HOLY God spoke ithis universe and all that is in it into existence.

  • atalib

    you now reading these comments on theroies and belief with all these incredibly intelligent people always make me feel so inferior. I just wonder why we can’t agree that both science and religion can coexist as being correct and incorrect.I dont have a hard time beleiving in both religion belief and scientific theroies

 
Copyright 2006-2012 Techie Buzz. All Rights Reserved. Our content may not be reproduced on other websites. Content Delivery by MaxCDN