Food Fight: Kirk Cameron v. Stephen Hawking

We got this from Fox News, so make of it what you will: Kirk Cameron slams Stephen Hawking’s claims that there is no heaven. The bold font was added by us:

Kirk Cameron has a bone to pick with theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking.

You know who Stephen Hawking is. As for Cameron, see: Kirk Cameron and the Crocoduck and also Kirk Cameron: World’s Dumbest Human?, and also Kirk Cameron (Banana Boy): The Joy of Eggs.

Now that you know the players, let’s read on:

Last week, award-winning scientist and best-selling author declared that the belief in heaven or an afterlife is a “fairy story” for people afraid of life after death. “I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail,” Hawking told the Guardian last week. “There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.”

What does Cameron say about that?

“Professor Hawking is heralded as ‘the genius of Britain,’ yet he believes in the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything and that life sprang from non-life.” The former teen heartthrob steamed to TMZ [a show-business website]. “Why should anyone believe Mr. Hawking’s writings if he cannot provide evidence for his unscientific belief that out of nothing, everything came?”

This is shaping up to be the intellectual battle of the century. We can’t wait for Hawking’s response.

Copyright © 2011. 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

13 responses to “Food Fight: Kirk Cameron v. Stephen Hawking

  1. Ah, but Hawking can indeed demonstrate that “something” comes from “nothing” because it’s not you’re grandfather’s nothing anymore. Nope, nothing is full of something.

    The only thing that has been demonstrated to contain nothing is the skulls of creationists like Banana Boy Cameron.

  2. What do we have here? A respected cosmologist v. Kirk Cameron (I’m not an actor, but I played one on T.V.). It seems obvious to me, but then obvious isn’t the same for everyone.

  3. NDaBoonies

    “Why should anyone believe Mr. Hawking’s writings if he cannot provide evidence for his unscientific belief that out of nothing, everything came?”

    That belief is the exclusive purvey of bible thumpers. Gawad of the bible is the only one that can make something from nothing. How dare Hawking hijack that belief!

    But when is a singularity ever ‘nothing?’ Only in thumper/cretinist land.

  4. The Crock-o-Duck Kid strikes again! Cosmologists everywhere are trembling.

    Although he only has a high school education, he has worked closely with Ray Comfort in recent years, so he is well mentored in the arcana of insanity.

  5. Bob Carroll

    I realize, Doc, that the apostrophe is a prominent member of the set of entities that are shaped like a banana, but let’s not overdo it. (Try ‘your’ for ‘you’re’ above.)
    AArrgh! a fiendish ploy! Now you’ve got me doing it!

  6. “Why should anyone believe Mr. Hawking’s writings

    Because of his intellectual contributions to society. That doesn’t mean he’s always right, but it does mean a rational person should expect that when it comes to physics, he will be a lot more right, a lot more often, than Kirk Cameron.

  7. Thank you, Bob Carroll, you’re exactly correct. I abused the old apostrophe. A combination of typing too fast and not proof-reading.

    See, creationists, it’s easy as pi to admit an error, make a note to try harder and move on.

    In closing, allow me to recommend a great book on the subject of punctuation, “Eats, Shoots and Leaves” available on Amazon dot Com and booksellers everywhere.

    Imma go now.

  8. I guess Kirk Cameron got jealous that Ben Stein is in the headlines again. Too bad that Cameron is a one-trick-pony who’s trick is long played out.

  9. … apologies for another inappropriate apostrophe. ~blush~

  10. eryops says: “another inappropriate apostrophe”

    You’re not being graded on apostrophes. But I’ll leave the blunder. This is how we learn.

  11. Bob Carroll

    eryops,
    My all-to-common grammatical comments (all right, corrections) are my contributions to levity, not lividity. For the Designer’s sake, don’t let them slow your thinking. Contribute first, then if you have time, proofread.
    I can’t help being a twit. Don’t take it seriously.

  12. @Bob Carroll:

    My all-to-common grammatical comments

    Muphry’s Law strikes again: it’s all-too-common.

  13. Kirk Cameron could not be any more incorrect (or stupid for that matter). Scientists have actually witnessed single cell yeast develop, nay EVOLVE into multiple celled organisms just recently. If things were just designed by a grand creator, then what is the need for sexual reproduction? Can’t this “God” just blink people into existence?

    And if God wants his followers to “go forth and reproduce”, then why does he make some of his most loyal followers unable to conceive? Are they not worthy of this “gift of life”? How do we explain stillbirths and miscarriages? Did God change his mind? Are you not worthy? Sorry, but I’m not subscribing to someone so fickle.