Creationist Wisdom #848: Hawking Was All Wrong

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Chatham Star Tribune of Chatham, Virginia, population 1,338. It’s titled Hawkings’ philosophy questioned after his passing. The newspaper has a comments section, but there aren’t any comments yet.

Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote her by using her full name. Her first name is Carolyn. Excerpts from her letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

The recent headlines announced the death of theoretical physicist, Stephen Hawking . … Stephen Hawking and his research certainly found its way into Dr.Staib’s astronomy class where I took my seat in the early 70’s at James Madison University.

Wowie! Carolyn had an astronomy class. She says:

Hawking believed that gravitational pull in “Black Holes” in space had somehow caused the “Big Bang” that created everything that exists!!!

Hawking said that? We didn’t know. Then she tells us:

I have often thought of the silence in that classroom filled with a couple hundred students. No one asked the professor to give a Biblical explanation of how an explosion could create: planet Earth… millions of galaxies…billions of stars…the human body with its unique fingerprint for every person…or the eye that can transmit sight. No one asked how an explosion could create anything of intricate order. In silence, we just accepted it. Numerous Bible-believing scientists have stated that the possibility of the creation of the universe from an explosion is less likely than an unabridged dictionary putting itself together from an explosion in a print shop.

Carolyn is much wiser now. That nonsense she was taught no longer impresses her. She continues:

It takes greater faith than mine in Christianity to believe anything created itself; or possessed the power to explode; or could come down in orderly fashion with the cover, the glue for the binding, the pages in perfect order, and every little letter in place from A to Z. Yet, that would have been a minor accomplishment compared to putting life and a lens in the human eye! Of course, few in that crowd ever offer an explanation or scientific fact why an explosion could create at least three planets that revolve in the opposite direction from the rest of those around planet Earth!

“At least three” planets revolve in the opposite direction from the Earth. Amazing! Let’s read on:

Simply stated, the First Law of Thermodynamics says that: “Matter can neither be created or destroyed.” With Hawking dismissing the Creator of the Universe, the matter, the gravity and the Black Hole would have had to create themselves!

Hawking was a fool! Another excerpt:

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that, “Everything goes from a state of order to disorder.” This is also an unbreakable Law of Science, yet, every time Evolution claims to make an improvement in the organism, it breaks the Law that demonstrates that the things of the universe go in the opposite direction, from order to disorder!

How could we have been so wrong? Here’s more:

The Bible doesn’t address every scientific issue, but where the Scripture speaks on science, it is absolutely correct. We need to let the Bible direct our quest for knowledge, knowing that proper study of God’s Word with accurate science will bring us to the truth.

So true! And now we come to the end:

Despite the Government decision to accept incorrect science and reject the belief in God, it won’t change the truth or the reality of God…no matter how many of our tax dollars they spend trying to convince us otherwise.

That was a powerful letter indeed! Good job, Carolyn!

Copyright © 2018. 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

20 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #848: Hawking Was All Wrong

  1. Holding The Line In Florida

    Truly, the naive simple mind is strong in this one!!!

  2. Michael Fugate

    “The Bible doesn’t address every scientific issue, but where the Scripture speaks on science, it is absolutely correct it is solely by luck if it hits on the currently favored explanation.”

    Didn’t we already try letting the Bible direct our quest for knowledge and found it was wrong about the age of the earth, the diversity of life, the structure of the universe, the origin of languages, etc.?

  3. MF: “Didn’t we already try letting the Bible direct our quest for knowledge and found it was wrong about the age of the earth, the diversity of life, the structure of the universe, the origin of languages, etc.?”
    What are you talking about? The Bible got it right! QED.

  4. “at least three planets that revolve in the opposite direction from the rest of those around planet Earth!”

    It’s a shame she didn’t take a few more English classes……

  5. It’s a continual source of amazement how some people take pride in demonstrating their total lack of understanding.

    Since there can’t be too many Carolyns in or around Chatham, Virginia, population 1,338, you should also give her last initial so as to save the other Carolyns around there from embarrassment.

  6. “The Bible doesn’t address every scientific issue”
    Here is the answer to those athiest materialist commienazis who dare to maintain that every single creacrap statement needs to be backed up by Scripture quotes. Creacrap is not concerned with coherence and consistency, so the principle of Sola Scripture only applies when it suits.

  7. Carolyn chooses an especially inappropriate metaphor for a man confined for most of his life by ALS to a wheelchair:

    Stephen Hawking was an avowed atheist, and it seemed that he bent over backward to prove his spiritual position at any cost to reason, observation, or scientific inquiry.

    And that’s the very least of the faults in her babbling…

  8. Did this lass really ever take astronomy at university level? Must’ve taken the wrong turn on the way to the theology lecture.

  9. Three cheers for Dr Staib for having the gall to teach an Astronomy class and not throw in a bit of bible study as well. But I note that Carolyn didn’t mention whether she passed that class – somehow I think not.

  10. It’s interesting that if there are “at least three planets that revolve in the opposite direction,” Carolyn thinks that’s evidence of God. Why? Because if everything were neat and orderly, it would be evidence in favor of secular science. Oh wait — doesn’t the “fine tuning” argument work the other way around?

  11. Charles Deetz ;)

    Scientific Creationist Wisdom method:

    1. Qualified: Took one class
    2. Smarter: I’m smarter than a world renowned scientist.
    3. Proof: One short letter will refute reams of science and thousands of scientists.
    4. Publish: That letter to the local paper will pass the muster of the editor (peer review!)
    5. Citations: Getting cited for Creationist Wisdom segment of The Sensuous Curmudgeon.

  12. “It’s interesting ….”
    It’s a relatively suble example of X hence god, -X also hence god. I write relatively subtle because

    “at least three planets that revolve in the opposite direction,”
    is a direct god of the gaps (a deviation from order that cannot be explained by science) while “everything revolving in the same direction” would be an indirect one – the argument from order in nature.

  13. “It takes greater faith than mine in Christianity to believe anything created itself”
    In fact, it takes no faith to think that once the universe appeared it organized itself to produce the results observed today. It takes faith to believe in a giant invisible superhero-like entity with demiurge-like powers that more or less (designed and) created itself before (designing and) creating the universe.

  14. I find it difficult to conceive of agents which are capable of determining the laws of nature (the fine-tuning argument) , but finds it necessary to make rare exceptions (the privileged planet), and even then suspend the operation of laws (the 2nd law of thermodyamics, the conservation of specified complex information) in order to achieve their imprtant goals.
    I’m not talking about “believing in” such agency, or about “evidence for” them.
    I’m taking about a consistent and coherence description.
    Creationism, particularly Intelligent Design, gives us confirmation of the difficulty of gving such a descrpton, by their refusal to approach a description.

  15. Michael Fugate

    Speaking of BioLogos, theistic evolution, and suspending “laws”, BL has a long series of posts “explaining” why one can be a scientist and believe in resurrection of the long dead. What’s unclear is whether the early followers in Jesus believed Jesus was resurrected; it is not in the early versions of Mark BTW. I imagine they believed resurrections could occur – just not sure about The Resurrection.

  16. Perhaps the illustrated version of A Brief History of Time would help Carolyn a bit. After that she could learn some calculus and study some serious cosmology and physics courses. Then she could get back to us when she actually knows what she is talking about.

  17. docbill1351

    Carolyn’s made-up story about astronomy class doesn’t add up, either. You’d be lucky, and in England, to have heard of Hawking’s theories in the “early 70’s” and, most definitely, intro astronomy courses don’t delve into cosmology. I took a graduate course on astrophysics in 1975 and we were still discussing mainstream stars and things like that. We spent maybe a day on cosmology and Hawking wasn’t even mentioned. I call BS.

  18. Charles Deetz – “5 Citations: Getting cited for Creationist Wisdom segment of The Sensuous Curmudgeon.”

    Ticking the last box on behalf of a budding creationist resume? Dear God! Has the SC gotten caught up in a web of…of…collusion!?!

  19. Techreseller

    Oh goodness. When she attended JMU it was still a lesser college. While men were allowed to enroll as day students back in 1946, it was not until the middle 70’s that men were allowed as full students with dorms etc. Now there are plenty of very good women only schools. JMU was not one of those in the 70’s. Much better school today. And I think her education shows it.