More gullible puff to push a favoured author's new book from the BBC (my comments in red):Stephen Hawking: God did not create Universe
The Universe can create itself from nothing, says Prof Hawking [Really? How interesting. How’s that then, because you say so?]
There is no place for God in theories on the creation of the Universe, Professor Stephen Hawking has said. [Or maybe there is. Explain yourself, professor]
He had previously argued belief in a creator was not incompatible with science but in a new book, he concludes the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics. [and he was right. As was Mgr Lemaitre]
The Grand Design, part serialised in the Times, says there is no need to invoke God to set the Universe going.
"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something," he concluded. [That professor, is a tautology. And you know it. Or you should ]
In his new book, an extract of which appears in the Times, Britain's most famous physicist sets out to contest Sir Isaac Newton's belief that the universe must have been designed by God as it could not have sprung out of chaos. [Sounds like he didn’t get very far]
Citing the 1992 discovery of a planet orbiting a star other than our Sun, he said: "That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions - the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass - far less remarkable, and far less compelling as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings." ["just to please us human beings" Really? Now you sound like a monstrously egocentric man]
He adds: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. [How so? There are laws which point to consistency and order rather than chaos and this points away from a Creator just how? Again, because you say so?]
"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. [That’s another tautology. “Sponataneous creation is why we exist. Why do we exist? Spontaneous creation." Such circularity will see you disappearing up a Black Hole, if you catch my drift...]
"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." [So what is the Uncaused First Cause, then?]
The book was co-written by US physicist Leonard Mlodinow and is published on 9 September.
In his 1988 bestseller, A Brief History of Time, Prof Hawking appeared to accept the role of God in the creation of the Universe. [Then again, he’s been tell us to prepare for aliens recently. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggghhtt....]
"If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we should know the mind of God," he said. [Hubris, professor. We’ll all come stand before God Himself soon enough, and then we’ll know what he has on His mind. As for me, I tremble with fear for that day, and I suggest you might do the same]
But the Bishop of Swindon, Dr Lee Rayfield, said science "can never prove the non-existence of God, just as it can never prove the existence of God." He added: "Faith is a matter that's outside that. [Some sense from an Anglican clergyman. A miracle indeed.]
"But as I look at the universe, and as many people who are much more understanding of cosmology than I, and mathematics, as they look at it, through the eyes of faith, they see a universe which is still very coherent with what we believe about God and His nature."
So there you have it. A physicist holds forth on theology. And makes himself look like an idiot. Then again everybody seems to be doing it. Jack Straw telling us how benevolent Islam is, Tony Blair asking what Jesus would think (he'd think "Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram...", Tone). The Holy Father would rightly be derided if he held forth on immunology or Quantum Mechanics or medieval poetry. They are areas beyond his competence or authority.
You see, Hawking is a theoretical physicist/mathematician and his fellow self-publicist, Dawkins, is a
chicken-watcher zoologist. They make a living selling books to people who aspire to look clever and/or stick it to religious types. It says much about the lazy journalism that surrounds this sort of reporting that no-one picks up on this but sits back like a bunch of credulous fools soaking it up.
It says much about their philosophical, theological and scientific illiteracy that journalists never question Hawking or Dawkins about their qualifications to speak on these matters. I suspect it is an inferiority complex on the part of the journalists (after all these chaps are Oxbridge dons, y’know, awfully clever) and in the case of Hawking they probably feel uncomfortable asking awkward questions of a chap in a wheelchair.
It’s no excuse. He’s talking rubbish.