Recently renowned scientist, Stephen Hawking stated that God is not necessary for the creation of the universe. [1] According to Hawking, physics can explain things without the need for a "benevolent creator who made the Universe for our benefit." There are two main problems with Hawkins assertion.
First, Hawking assumes that you can get something from nothing. Everything must have a beginning, including the universe. The Kalam Cosmological Argument eloquently shows that all things have a beginning and cause, if it begins to exist. The universe had a beginning, commonly known as the big bang, and therefore was caused to exist. Nothing in science pops into existence from nothing. From nothing, nothing comes. Science cannot even address this question, as it falls into the realm of philosophy, and this brings up the second problem.
One of the charges laid at the intelligent design community is that ID has nothing to do with science. Opponents of ID claim that ID is nothing more that repackaged creationism or just simply philosophical musing. Hawkins' belief that physics brought about the creation of the universe is no different than the charge that is leveled at the ID community. Hawkins second big problem is that his statement is nothing more than a philosophical leap of faith or pseudo-science at best. Where did the laws of Physics come from Mr. Hawking? If Physics is responsible for creation, then we have to go back another step, and another, and so on. Not only does Hawking present an infinite regress, but he has dabbled in a realm where scientist don't usually want to go. Because Hawking offers a non-scientific approach to creation and has no evidence to support the reasoning of his claim, he is clearly out of his league.
[1] Article concerning Stephen Hawking's view of creation.
No comments:
Post a Comment