On Smarts, Planets, Cars, and Chaos
One of the “smartest” teens I ever knew shut his own head in the van door on the day that I met him. We were headed to a middle-school camping trip. Later that day, he was very excited to discover and play with some “little black worms” he found in the river. As I tried to help him pick all the leeches off his legs, I was reminded that people with really high IQs tend to (a) think that their spatial reasoning and problem solving ability make them smart in all areas of life and (b) not be as intelligent as their quotient would suggest.
Stephen Hawking has released a new book wherein he makes a claim that some are touting has implications for astronomy similar to what Darwin did for Biology. Hawking states that God was not necessary for the universe to have come into existence. Now, that in and of itself is no new statement. Scientists have been claiming for years that chance, and not design brought the universe into existence. The thing Stephen is bringing to the table is proof. And while he probably has a lot of arguments and reasoning behind his claims, (one would hope so with it being a whole book) the first proof is a hum-dinger.
Are you ready for it? Here it is:
In 1992 another planet was discovered orbiting another star.
You see, according to Stephen Hawking, the fact that more solar systems exist means that chance could have produced them. Our planet is not a special as we thought it was.
The only problem is that more than one thing does not rule out design of said thing; chance is not more likely than design to produce two of the same thing.
Surely I do not believe that something as relatively simple as my car was brought about by a chance process. And when I see another car like mine driving down the street my suspicion is that whoever designed my car made more than one. Instead, Hawking says that two cars is proof that not only the cars came about on their own, but that the factory did too.
Stephen Hawking has released a new book wherein he makes a claim that some are touting has implications for astronomy similar to what Darwin did for Biology. Hawking states that God was not necessary for the universe to have come into existence. Now, that in and of itself is no new statement. Scientists have been claiming for years that chance, and not design brought the universe into existence. The thing Stephen is bringing to the table is proof. And while he probably has a lot of arguments and reasoning behind his claims, (one would hope so with it being a whole book) the first proof is a hum-dinger.
Are you ready for it? Here it is:
In 1992 another planet was discovered orbiting another star.
You see, according to Stephen Hawking, the fact that more solar systems exist means that chance could have produced them. Our planet is not a special as we thought it was.
The only problem is that more than one thing does not rule out design of said thing; chance is not more likely than design to produce two of the same thing.
Surely I do not believe that something as relatively simple as my car was brought about by a chance process. And when I see another car like mine driving down the street my suspicion is that whoever designed my car made more than one. Instead, Hawking says that two cars is proof that not only the cars came about on their own, but that the factory did too.
You don't know me, but I actually just read a article on Yahoo about this guy and his book. I've been reading Hebrews 11:3 with my two girls every morning this week.
ReplyDelete"By faith we understand that the entire universe was formed at God's command, that what we now see did not come from anything that can be seen."
We've sat and talked about what it means and how amazing our God truly is. And then, this. How terribly sad for him...and for those who would believe him. Anyhow, just thought I'd share...hope you don't mind.
Love the last sentence!
ReplyDelete