These are my thoughts on Stephen Hawking's latest proclamation that there's no afterlife. "The fool has said in his heart that there is no God." [iii]
There's no doubt that Mr. Hawking is an intelligent man; but is he really as intelligent as he and the media want you to believe?
The Bible’s first verse says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth …”[i] Hawking states that matter always existed and at one time, it was all in a container smaller than the size of a pin head. What? All the matter in the universe was confined in something smaller than the head of a pin? If this were true of matter, shouldn't you be able to stuff an unlimited number of garments in a suitcase? We'd need only one garbage bag for a lifetime!
So when it supposedly exploded, (the so-called big bang) it all came out and organized into solar systems, galaxies, planets, moons, stars, etc. with the incredible order that it now possesses? How does Hawking know it exploded? Was he there? Now that takes faith to believe!
Mr. Hawking, and the scientific community for that matter, would really be on to something if he could explain the following:
- How matter generated from nothing. The big bang theory doesn't explain that. In the beginning there was absolutely nothing, no matter, no space, no vacuum, no heavens, no earth. Absolutely nothing existed. He, nor the scientific community, can explain that.
- If you take a frog, place it in a blender and turn it on for a minute and then turn it off. Pour out that “goo” somewhere in an atmosphere that would support life. Since all the things needed to create life, both atmospheric and chemical are present, how long would it take before all of these things "evolve" into a frog? It wouldn't! It would either dry up or become infected with bacteria due to decomposition long before anything else happened. Bacterial infection is not evolution! For this reason alone, evolution is impossible because the “goo” Hawking claims we came from couldn't survive since it would either dry up or decompose long before any of this happened. He, nor the scientific community, can explain that.
- How do you get around the decomposition dilemma? Since microbes like bacteria are further down the evolutionary chain than human beings, the microbes would prevent further evolution from ever happening. Since these microbes are responsible for the decomposition of organic material, like the "goo" that Hawking claims we have come from, the evolutionary process would've ended at this point. If the primordial soup would have everything available for life to form, it would have been infected by the bacteria responsible for decomposition, which already formed earlier in the evolutionary sequence, and would cause the primordial soup to decompose. This would be an endless cycle at this point, the goo would form once again and once again, decomposition would run its course. So how did life make the leap past this dilemma? Hawking, nor the scientific community, can explain that.
- How DNA would've formed from nothing. How DNA could progress from a simpler form to a more complex form; i.e., how information was added to DNA to make it more complex. Yet when cells split, we see that a small piece of information is only lost. Throughout history, there is not one single example of information being added to DNA. He, nor the scientific community, can explain that.
- How our ability to reason works or was developed. It's what sets us apart from animals. Some incorrectly believe that animals can reason in that they do tricks, fetch food, etc. However, these are the result of instincts and training, not reasoning. Reasoning includes planning, logical thought, and anticipating reactions, etc. He, nor the scientific community, can explain that.
- When he says that we should live the best life we can: Who, or what mechanism, would set the standard for good? “Society” is not a correct answer. If society suddenly deemed that murder, pedophilia, or rape are acceptable, does that make it good or right? He, nor the scientific community, can explain that.
Since Mr. Hawking, nor the scientific community, cannot explain these things it is merely opinion. The bible says that the “wisdom of man is but foolishness to God.”[ii] I like my chances of putting my faith in Jesus Christ a whole lot better than putting my faith in the statements of a man with a high level of so-called "intelligence."
If I'm wrong, I'm no better off than Hawking but if I'm right; oh man, if I'm right, I can't even come close to imagining what God has prepared for me as His word says. It’s my hope Hawking seea this logical conclusion before he dies as well. "
Note: Your comments are welcome as long as you provide your name and email address to allow for reply.
[i] Gen 1:1, KJV[ii] 1 Cor 3:19, NIV[iii] Psalm 14:1, NIV
Mr. Francis
ReplyDeleteI agree completely with your comments regarding Mr. Hawking's suppositions. The laws of geo-physics have proven Hawking wrong and actually support Almighty GOD as the Creator of the Universe. It's about time science came to its senses. Thank you, Mr. Francis, for your excellent dissertation.
Jonathan Francis:
ReplyDeleteThanks for your kind words. Of course, those that have criticized me have accused me of not having the education and/or knowledge of this area. However, though I work in the technology field, it is in the technology field in the scientific sector. Not to toot my own horn, but I'm very well educated in chemistry, biology, and biochemistry.
To put it mildly, it is difficult for me to believe the junk that academia is spewing when there is not one shred of scientific evidence that disclaims the Bible's the authenticity. If the evidence is interpreted properly, it will affirm the Bible's veracity.
I'm afraid, after reading your blog, that you are extremely misinformed. You should take an intro to biology course at your local community college or something.
ReplyDelete1) Hawking actual did a documentary about the very question you asked. I believe its called Curiosity and he would better explain it than myself.
2) Bacteria is life, the "goo" (the wrong idea of how species arose altogether) would have created the bacteria that you're talking about so, no, the bacteria didn't exist at the time of the "goo". Also, look up RNA and learn that please.
3) Again, you have no idea how life arose on the planet. Bacterium arose after small patches of RNA came together to form DNA that then evolved to "survive" or inhabit other environments eventually leading to the more complex bacteria which then created communities that also become larger, more complex, organisms.
4) What you're trying to say is that DNA doesn't create diversity. It does. Its called mutation and new codes are added fairly often. Without mutation then there wouldn't be diversity and you would be correct. But mutation does occur so you have no idea what you're talking about.
5) As a species, yes, we hold a higher cognitive ability to reason. But that arose out of thousands of years where we adapted to our environments not physically but mentally. We are better able to survive as a pack and, in doing so, began teaching each other survival techniques. These techniques were passed on from generation to generation and those who were best able to remember and learn that information were more likely to survive and pass on their genes. So, as time passed, we became increasingly intelligent as a species. This is also observed in some primate species where an older generation will teach a younger generation techniques for acquiring food. These techniques are also defined as "culture".
6) Society and culture does set that standard. There have been societies in the past that have normalized things we would consider bad. You probably live in a culture where its bad to be gay or effeminate or any of the sort. Early Christians wanted to stone disobedient children in the town square and have slaves. They also felt that women were inferior to their male counterparts. So, over so many years, it has been despite the less than satisfactory beliefs of religion that we have moved to a society that supports equality because we, as a people, have decided on these rules by our collective values.
Before trying to disclaim any intellectual I would recommend reading his or her material first.