Theory of Everything

​

"Our use of probabilistic terms to describe the outcome of events in everyday life is therefore a reflection not of the intrinsic nature of the process but only of our ignorance of it. Probabilities in quantum physics are different. They reflect a fundamental randomness in nature."

Page 95

 

So while he accepts that our inability to predict exactly where a dart will land is due to our ignorance of such factors as the speed, spin and direction of the dart, he gives no consideration to the possibility that the unpredictability of quantum events is also due to our ignorance of everything that is taking place.

​

What we do know is certainly sufficient for us to utilise quantum mechanics to our advantage however, and indeed many modern devices - smart phones, laser beams, etc. - make use of it. A few weeks before I originally wrote this piece it was announced that quantum computers, apparently just around the corner, will be so far in advance of today’s computers they could undertake calculations that would take our present computers the entire age of the universe to complete. As that was seven years ago it appears a rather larger corner than we were lead to expect! Of course, this calculation is using the evolutionist’s estimate of the age of the universe: c13.7 billion years!

​

One of the common, untrue and tiresome complaints of evolutionists is that there are no scientists who believe in creationism and that a belief in creation hinders true science. This is not a claim that Hawking could make however, because after telling us that Isaac Newton’s law of gravity was the first force to be described in mathematic terms, on page 112 he says:

​

"…Newton believed that God could and did intervene in the workings of the universe."

​

As a Christian, Newton, like many other founders of scientific methods, believed our Creator-God would produce a universe that was orderly, run by consistent laws, and able to be investigated and understood.

​

“We account the Scriptures of God to be the most sublime philosophy. I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatever.”

Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727)

​

“Sir Isaac Newton was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist and theologian, who has been considered by many to be the greatest and most influential scientist who ever lived. His monograph Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, published in 1687, lays the foundations for most of classical mechanics.”

Quoted here

​

In this chapter, The Theory of Everything, Hawking goes on to describe how the understanding of the forces of electricity and magnetism was furthered by Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell, both of whom believed in a Creator, although he does not tell us this. Read more quotes from Isaac Newton here, which includes:

 

“Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who sets the planets in motion.”

 

“Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance.”

 

See here for a list of creation-scientists, past and present. Contrary to the evolutionists’ claims, without men who had a belief in God, understanding of the basic laws that govern our universe would, at the very least, have been delayed.

 

So when Hawking goes on to say…

​

..it’s likely that our eyes evolved with the ability to detect electromagnetic radiation..

Page 117

 

…it is clear that Newton, Faraday and Maxwell, on whose work he depends for his own understanding of the universe, would not agree with him that our eyes evolved!

​

On page 122 Hawking criticises Lord Kelvin for continuing to believe that ‘the ether’ exists when observation demonstrated the opposite:

​

"As we’ve said often happens, people try to save the model by contrived and ad hoc additions."

​

But this is precisely what he and many others are presently doing with the Big Bang theory, and as new observations demonstrate serious problems with it they bolt on new additions in order to try to preserve it: so much so that many evolutionary scientists now realise it is untenable. In the publication New Scientist, 30 June 2012, the cover article by New Scientist consultant Amanda Gefter, “What Kind of Bang was the Big Bang?” describes some serious problems with the present theories of the origin of the universe on page 35:

​

“We thought that inflation predicted a smooth, flat universe,” says Paul Steinhardt of Princetown University, a pioneer of inflation who has become a vocal detractor. “Instead it predicts every possibility an infinite number of times. We’re back to square one.” Tegmark  agrees: “Inflation has destroyed itself. It logically self-destructed.”

(This quote can be seen here, although a subscription is required in order to read it.)

(Max Tegmark, cosmologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.)

​

Some years earlier, in New Scientist, May 22, 2004, was published a ‘Cosmology Statement’ complaining that virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies, when the theory only survives through a number of ‘fudge factors’. It then appeared on the Internet and was signed by large numbers of scientists across the world. The original page has now disappeared, but at the time of writing this page, the statement can be seen here, and begins:

​

"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory."

​

In a lecture I attended, given by Valerie Calderbank FRAS, she began, after telling us that the Big Bang Theory was the best explanation of the universe’s origin there is, by saying with reference to what she was about to tell us...

​

"If we get a better theory, then all this will be thrown away,"

​

…which proves that at best it is an unproven hypothesis, based on the belief that no kind of Intelligent Designer exists and therefore there can only be a naturalistic explanation for origins. So it’s foundation is not scientific observation, but the religious belief that God does not exist.

​

The problem for Hawking with his big bang theory and other scientists with alternative naturalistic explanations for the universe is that none of them work without, in Hawking’s words,

 

“contrived and ad hoc additions.”

 

This is hardly surprising, since it is obvious that if the universe was actually created by an Intelligent Designer then no naturalistic explanation can ever work! On page 139 he talks about…

​

“…a consequence of our lack of understanding.”

 

It becomes very clear from reading this book that scientific theories are simply ideas dreamed up by people trying to explain the universe, which are then tested against observation. Fair enough! This is the way our scientific understanding has brought us to the point where we can fly in the air, communicate with people in spaceships circling the moon, and use computers that at the beginning of my lifetime were stuff of science fiction. The problem arises when, on the basis of their incomplete knowledge and ‘lack of understanding’, they pontificate that they have proved the universe could have built itself and therefore God does not exist. At the same time they are aware that at the quantum level things take place in apparently random ways.

 

One of the inviolable laws of the universe is that you reap what you sow; or to put it in computer terms RIRO - rubbish in, rubbish out! Since it seems highly unlikely that an orderly universe could be built on random foundations, the obvious conclusion is that there must be something else going on that is directing it all. Today’s present knowledge may be able to make fairly accurate predictions at the quantum level, such that use can be made of it all to create previously impossible devises, but this does not mean that there is nothing else to learn or that current theories are not actually very far from the mark. It simply means, as in the past, that we know just enough to be able to make use of the principles in the universe that govern these areas, but that in the future a better understanding will radically alter our theories about them.

​

INDEX

​