Ken Ham Contradicts Stephen Hawking

YES, dear reader, you read our title correctly. You are going to learn about what promises to be the greatest intellectual battle of our generation. It began with the news that Stephen Hawking, the renowned theoretical physicist, made some interesting statements lately. (It’s not directly relevant, but we should point out that Hawking is “Steve” number 300 in Project Steve.)

Here’s a news account of what Hawking recently said: Stephen Hawking: mankind must move to outer space within a century. That’s sub-titled: “The human race must look to outer space within the next century or it will become extinct, Professor Stephen Hawking has warned.

In a strikingly bold move, Hawking has been criticized by Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the genius who brought you the website Answers in Genesis (AIG) and the mind-boggling Creation Museum.

Actually, this may not be so bold for Hambo. According to what we read at his website, he’s already confronted — and defeated! — Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, the Big Bang, and virtually all of modern science. Most recently he attacked the Smithsonian. It makes sense that such a man would be looking for even greater challenges.

Hambo’s article is Stephen Hawking — Both Right and Wrong. Hambo starts out quoting a news story about what Hawking said:

One way or another, the life on Earth will likely become uninhabitable for mankind in the future. We need to start seriously thinking about how we will free ourselves from the constraints of this dying planet.

That’s not necessarily a direct quote from Hawking, but that’s what Hambo quoted. Here’s a better quote from the London Telegraph — it’s the article we linked above:

Our only chance of long-term survival is not to remain inward looking on planet Earth but to spread out into space. We have made remarkable progress in the last hundred years. But if we want to continue beyond the next hundred years, our future is in space. That is why I’m in favour of manned, or should I say ‘personed’, space flight.

Hawking has said things like that before. Now here are some excerpts from Hambo’s response, with bold added by us:

Well, Stephen Hawking is right in calling the earth a “dying planet.” This is what the Bible tells us:

[Quoting scripture:] For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. (Romans 8:22)

The earth (in fact, the whole universe) is dying because of sin — it is now groaning because of the effects of the Curse.

So Hambo has carefully checked part of what Hawking said and he agrees with it. That must be a great comfort to Hawking. Let’s read on:

However, Stephen Hawking is wrong in declaring that man could cause his own extinction or that man has to escape to space to survive. The Bible tells us what will happen in the future … .

Then Hambo quotes 2 Peter 3:10-13, part of which says this:

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.

After presenting that data, Hambo tells us (and Hawking too):

It is God who will decide when the earth as it is now will no longer exist — it is God who will judge it with fire — and it is God who will make the new heavens and new earth. This earth will end with great heat — but from judgment, not some natural event.

Aha — Hawking is wrong! Here’s one more excerpt:

Man’s word concerning our future is full of despair and uncertainty — God’s Word is true and certain about what will happen.

What now? Will Hawking accept the Hambo Challenge and try to defend himself? Or will he have the decency to admit his error and retract what he said? The next move is up to Hawking.

Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

9 responses to “Ken Ham Contradicts Stephen Hawking

  1. The Hammer says, “The earth (in fact, the whole universe) is dying because of sin…” So it won’t help to escape earth if the ‘whole universe’ is also infected. Not to mention that the ‘Rapture’ will occur before earth is destroyed, nor to mention that the earth is the only place in the universe designed to the exact specifications necessary for human life.

  2. Sometimes, I wonder what goes on in the dark, twisted, maniacal mind of the Hamster.

    Then I remember, he’s just a carnival barker. Nothing more. Not a hamster, really, but a huckster.

    He has learned how to make a good living playing to the ignorance and gullibility of an audience carefully cultivated.

    What makes Ken Ham truly disgusting is his eager willingness to lie to children about science and the real world. He’s really trash of the lowest order.

  3. I really admire the US Constitution, and am a member of a UK organisation that has fought for 30 or so years to get our own version. I love the way it becomes a contract of governance and statement of rights between the people and thier representatives in government. The men who wrote it were true giants. I walk, as we all do, in their shadows.

    But the way it is translated fills me with horror, and Im damn glad we dont have this First Ammendment stupidity to deal with. Nice idea on paper…but then so is a lot of stuff. You can always rely on humans to screw good ideas up.

    Like you we in the UK have Free Speech, but are mature enough to realise that it must by definition be moderated to prevent its misuse. Our hate crime laws and libel/slander and reasonable expression laws are excellent tools there. If you say it it had better be provably true…or else you can be sued or prosecuted for spreading hate and lies.

    The past few years have seen several key cases around what religious fools are allowed to spout online or from street corners, and they are fast learning that the law comes before their gods. The street preacher who is doing time for advocating hatred of gays, the muslims doing time for advocating violence and race war. The creationist zoo you flagged up will no doubt soon get sued by some “concerned parent” soon (for spreading lies) along with the idiot who approved it.

    Thats why Hambo hides in comfort in the US – in Oz or the UK he would find himself facing a judge on a regular basis. The same reason that anti vaccination quack has just had his UK licence pulled and ran to hide in the US. Because they can abuse your First Ammendment with glee.

    In the UK we take slander and libel seriously, and love hanging cranks out to dry.

  4. It seems that Stephen Hawking has seen sci-fi movie “PROXIMA” and he made note:
    http://www.carlosatanes.com/stephen_hawking_science_fiction.html

  5. Gabriel Hanna

    re: the topic of this thread, Hawking is going way out beyond his sphere of competence. Not that I don’t agree with him, and not that I think he’s saying anything stupid. However, his expertise in physics doesn’t give him any credibility on the policy of space colonization and exploration that any other citizen wouldn’t have, though he certainly is much better prepared to understand how to implement it.

    @Sandman: Libel laws in the UK are often used to shut people up.

    For example, a British doctor was sued by chiropractors for saying that what they do is “bogus”. The burden of proof was on him, to prove that he doesn’t deserve to be fined tens of thousands of pounds. In America it would be the chiropractors’ burden to prove that he willfully said something he knew wasn’t true in order to defame them, which is such a high standard almost no one can meet it.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mandrake/2570744/Doctors-take-Simon-Singh-to-court.html

    I can point to countless examples of “libel tourism” where libel suits are used, in the UK, to shut people up, even people in other countries entirely.

    In America we think the antidote to bad speech is good speech, and we let our citizens decide for themselves. We also don’t have (ahem) an established church…

  6. I live in the UK, and I do not have an established church either, so I am not sure what your point is?

  7. Gabriel Hanna

    @Flakey:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England

    You may not attend it, and be free to attend others or none, but it’s the national church nonetheless, the “established” one.

  8. Gabriel Hanna

    Oh, I see, you must not be in England. Well, bishops of the church that’s not established for you are still sitting House of Lords, are they not?

  9. Yeah I live in Wales.

    They do still sit in the Lords, but do not vote on anything that is not directly tied to the CoE. I admit the Lords needs serious reform, just the last Labour government started, and then stopped, when reform would have split the party over what to do with it.

    “Where state religions exist, it is usually true the majority of residents are officially considered adherents; however, in some cases support is little more than nominal with many members not practicing the religion regularly such as the case with the Anglican Church in England.”

    Even though technically we have an established church it has little effect in our lives. It does not enjoy any more protections, or advantages, than any other major church denomination in Britain. Except in census and polling data. Many default to CoE when asked for a religion.

    In many ways, beside officially, Britain is a far more secular than the States. Even the CoE own figures state that less than 3% of the nation attend their churches (if you exclude weddings and funerals), and the other dominations are no better than that.