Once again we visit WorldNetDaily (WND), the flamingly creationist, absolutely execrable, moronic, and incurably crazed journalistic organ that believes in and enthusiastically promotes every conspiracy theory that ever existed. WND was an early winner of our Buffoon Award, thus that jolly logo displayed above this post.
We know that they have a special treat for us today, because they’re flying their “Evolution Watch” banner above the title of today’s article. To the creationists at WND, that’s equivalent to the Terrorism Watch maintained by Homeland Security. Today’s article is: Stephen Hawking takes on God.
WND is dismissive of Stephen Hawking — and why not? After all, he’s one of those satanic scientists on the National Center for Science Education’s List of Steves who support the theory of evolution. Here are some excerpts from today’s WND article, with bold added by us:
With his new book “The Grand Design,” retired Cambridge physicist Stephen Hawking appears to have further bolstered his reputation as a latter-day Charles Darwin, but some in the scientific community are not impressed.
Who’s not impressed with Hawking? Let’s read on:
The book “is a vehicle for putting across lightweight speculation that anybody could imagine,” asserts MIT-educated physicist Thomas P. Sheahen in a paper provided to WND.
We don’t know who Sheahen is, but we’ll continue:
“If the author names [Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow] were reversed, Mlodinow first, everyone would ignore this book,” Sheahen writes in “A Physicist Looks at The Grand Design.'” “Only Hawking’s fame boosts it to totally undeserved prominence.”
Maybe. At least in the opinion of Sheahen and WND. Here’s more:
“The folly of Hawkings’ claim is pretty obvious,” E. Calvin Beisner, national spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation in suburban Washington, D.C., told WND. “The law of gravity is, of course, not nothing, and consequently the universe’s spontaneous self-creation wouldn’t be a creation from nothing anyway.”
Ah, yet another world-class authority challenges Hawking. Moving along:
“Just as Darwin and Alfred Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the multiverse concept can explain the fine tuning of physical law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the Universe for our benefit,” the authors [Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow] contend.
Personally, we don’t care for the “multiverse” idea because it’s inherently untestable — but we won’t argue with Hawking. Another excerpt:
Prominent physicists such as Albert Einstein, however, did not rule out the involvement of a higher being in the creation of the universe. Sir Isaac Newton, who developed the theory of gravity, insisted that science could only explain the universe’s behavior, not its origin.
Einstein didn’t rule it out — so what? As for Newton, he was certainly great in his day, but it’s well-known that he had some wildly unconventional pseudo-scientific ideas, and whatever he said about the origin of the universe was opinion only. Besides, he wrote Principia Mathematica in 1686. and a great deal his been learned since then. One final excerpt from the WND article:
Sheahen maintains that Hawking’s book “has carried speculation too far.”
Perhaps so. But compared to WND’s creationism, Hawking’s work looks rather solid. You decide, dear reader.
Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.