Dawkinswatch

Exposing Evolution As A Mess and Atheism As Hot-Air!

Stephen Hawking: Big Bang A Moment Of Creation

with 25 comments

Professor Richard Dawkins  needs an Easter present and I think he should have this series of videos on Stephen Hawking’s research activity.

Now you will see that the big-bang was not the favoured theory because then scientists believed in steady states and not an expanding universe.  The big bang theory is closer to the creation because it claims that there was a moment of creation.

Atheists are working frantically to incorporate the big bang to fit in with their theory for Evolution.

Stephen Hawking has said it all  the big bag proves a moment of creation.  A Richard Dawkins can claim to be a Darwinian, that science disproves God and that one day Physics will one day explain it all.  But from my encounters with Physicists they readily concede that there are things they will never know?

I think they are more realistic than the sensationalists like Richard Dawkins who have turned science into an idol.


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Advertisements

Written by dawkinswatch

March 18, 2008 at 3:48 pm

25 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I think you are right that the big bang idea and that physics in general pose fewer theological problems than evolution does. At the same time, I don’t think that Darwin’s argument that natural selection accounts for the origin of species poses as many theological problems as the debate between creationists or intelligent design advocates and antireligionists like Richard Dawkins implies. I also think that theology has the potential for enrichment from physics and biology. I think Darwin’s own words suggest this potential. He wrote, for example, about the immense and wonderful universe leading him to have theological thoughts. I also see this potential in much nature writing, even in the writings of people like Loren Eiseley and Aldo Leopold who sometimes criticized religion.

    Ken

    March 18, 2008 at 5:56 pm

  2. Atheists are working frantically to incorporate the big bang to fit in with their theory for Evolution.

    Frantically?? LOL

    Dan

    March 18, 2008 at 7:07 pm

  3. Dawkinswatch,
    By the way, with the argument stemming from the Big Bang, have you fallen back to the classical deist approach? That is, have you given up the Christian idea of a personal God?

    Because the appeal to the Big Bang is only consistent with classical deism and atheism, until such point as we can discover what happened at the moment of the Big Bang and before it (to date we can only see as far back as ~3seconds after the bang, and don’t actually know how it happened). Having a Bang followed by natural expansion of the Universe simply renders an interventionist god pointless.

    Dan

    March 18, 2008 at 8:03 pm

  4. well,do you believe in the big bang theory,sir?

    dawkinswatch

    March 18, 2008 at 10:06 pm

  5. “The big bang theory is closer to the creation because it claims that there was a moment of creation.”

    No, it claims that there was a beginning. It doesn’t imply that anybody created anything.

    “Atheists are working frantically to incorporate the big bang to fit in with their theory for Evolution.”

    Why would we “work frantically” to do something that isn’t even a miniscule challenge? The Big Bang is completely compatible with evolution. One describes the origin of the universe. The other describes the origin of complex life.

    “I think they are more realistic than the sensationalists like Richard Dawkins who have turned science into an idol.”

    Hold it: you’re accusing Richard Dawkins of turning reason into an “idol”? How would you idolize reason? Do we ‘idolize’ honesty and ‘idolize’ truth as well?

    J. Frantz

    March 19, 2008 at 2:59 am

  6. This blog entry is horribly misleading.

    Stephen Hawking didn’t say the “the big bag [sic] proves a moment of creation” … at least, not in these videos. Listen carefully to what he says … he’s relating that the POPE told him that “the Big Bang is the moment of creation and the work of God”. The POPE said it, Hawking is relating it. Should I draw a picture? And he’s quite clear that he and the Pope don’t see eye-to-eye on further scientific investigation into the Big Bang. It’s quite a leap to say that Hawking believes the Big Bang is creation by an intelligent designer.

    Jeez, why do you have to make up stuff so blatantly?

    500 years ago, science couldn’t explain why the Sun appears to go around the Earth; now it can. 100 years ago science couldn’t say the first thing about the age of or the conditions in the early universe; now it can. Give a little more time and we’ll be able to explain the Big Bang. If it turns out a big guy wearing sandals was responsible, then science will start working on figuring out where he came from and why he did it. Unlike religion, science is making progress.

    Larry

    March 19, 2008 at 4:43 am

  7. well,do you [accept] the big bang theory,sir?

    Absolutely. And I also accept an evolving Universe after the Bang.

    And I’d just like to echo Frantz’s comment: “[Y]ou’re accusing Richard Dawkins of turning reason into an “idol”? How would you idolize reason? Do we ‘idolize’ honesty and ‘idolize’ truth as well?”

    Indeed – and this isn’t the first religionist blog that I’ve come across with this obsession on idols. What on earth do idols and Dawkins have in common? Nothing that I can see.

    Dan

    March 19, 2008 at 7:21 am

  8. Check this one out – dawkinswatch says Hitler didn’t write Mein Kampf. In other news, Jefferson didn’t write the Declaration of Independence, the Spanish wrote the Magna Charta, Karl Marx wasn’t Marxist, and Stephen Hawking is an economist.

    Dan

    March 19, 2008 at 7:31 am

  9. Dan there are load of books which were written by someone else and attributed to the individual. Please read “Secret History of the Jesuits” E Paris, he will tell you who wrote Mein Kampf.

    But thatis off Topic.

    dawkinswatch

    March 19, 2008 at 1:35 pm

  10. Sure, it’s off topic. But it’s hilarious about how you claim things that are untrue. It’s as though you’d like to rewrite history to match your own likings.

    Dan

    March 19, 2008 at 1:42 pm

  11. Larry

    You are missing something important:

    This series was produced by Stephen Hawking and he believes in creation.

    dawkinswatch

    March 19, 2008 at 1:53 pm

  12. Also, looking up The Secret History of the Jesuits was a good laugh. From the sounds of it, it’s either a fantastic and fictional conspiracy piece, or a poorly researched screed. The whole story rests on the assumption that secret societies exist – laughable.

    Dan

    March 19, 2008 at 1:54 pm

  13. This series was produced by Stephen Hawking and he believes in creation.

    Does he now? You might want to back that claim up, because right now, you have an excellent track record of making things up, as Larry accuses you of. That, plus he’s right, Stephen Hawking didn’t say the “the big bag [sic] proves a moment of creation” … at least, not in these videos.

    Dan

    March 19, 2008 at 1:58 pm

  14. No, Hawking isn’t a Creationist. He’s way, way too smart for that.

    J. Frantz

    March 19, 2008 at 4:11 pm

  15. You wrote: This series was produced by Stephen Hawking and he believes in creation.

    Of course I realize the series was produced by Hawking. I kind of noticed that he was narrating.

    I assume that your definition of “creation” means “creation by intent of a conscious God”. That’s not the same thing as believing in the Big Bang, which any reasonable cosmologist does these days. I could be misunderstanding what Hawking believes – I don’t presume to speak for him or know much about him. But please cite a reference where Stephen says that the universe was created by a God, in this series or elsewhere. On his web site, he mentions the topic obliquely when he says this:

    “There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.”

    http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html

    Larry

    March 19, 2008 at 6:26 pm

  16. Larry let us suppose you are right, that the big bang happened without God.

    Do you acknowledge that a Roman Catholic Priest can up with the big bang?

    That he was opposed by Scientists of the day?

    Now since you have acknowledged the above facts, please tell us how non life became life?

    dawkinswatch

    March 19, 2008 at 10:15 pm

  17. “That he was opposed by Scientists of the day?”

    When Hubble discovered the expansion of the universe two years after Lemaitre proposed the the Big Bang, scientists became split over the Big Bang or the Steady State theory. As more evidence came in, the Big Bang became the favored theory.

    This is how science works. We don’t believe things until the evidence came in. Just because Lemaitre had the right idea doesn’t mean that scientists were being dogmatic by not accepting him right away.

    “Now since you have acknowledged the above facts, please tell us how non life became life?”

    That’s an important question that scientists don’t know yet.

    Oh, I get it, you think that the fact that scientists don’t know everything is an indication that your ancient book is correct. HOW FUCKING FUNNY!

    J. Frantz

    March 19, 2008 at 10:44 pm

  18. > You wrote: “Larry let us suppose you are right, that the big bang happened without God. [etc]”

    You are changing the subject, so I take that to mean you are conceding defeat on my point. My several comments about your blog entry were completely about your statement that Hawking is a creationist. I state that you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting what he said in his show, and all the sudden you want to debate various other points. You bring up some good topics, but that wasn’t the point I challenged you on. I stated that you are misrepresenting Hawking and I asked you to back up your original statements about what Hawking believes with a reference.

    As to your new set of questions:

    > You wrote: Do you acknowledge that a Roman Catholic Priest can up with the big bang? That he was opposed by Scientists of the day?

    Yes, I agree. Lemaître was a key figure (others were important as well) in this work, and it flew in the face of what cosmologists commonly believed at the time. Don’t forget that Lemaître got there through mathematics and theory (i.e. science). His math was sound and so he was able to convince folks like Einstein.

    Being good scientists, they set aside their vanity, and given the observational agreement (through Hubble’s work), it was accepted. Further work (like observations with the COBE satellite) have added more weight to the theory.

    This should be seen as a major victory for the scientific method and the intellectual honesty of these great men. (The fact that Lemaître was a Priest is interesting but it doesn’t mean that the Big Bang was caused by a conscious creator. That is a major leap of logic.)

    > You wrote: Now since you have acknowledged the above facts, please tell us how non life became life?

    Whoa, another complete shift to a different topic! A good question but that’s a completely different discussion, and this is completely not related to the fact that the Big Bang theory is attributable to a Priest. Anyway, my cosmology background is pretty thin (undergrad degree) but my biology background is even thinner. So I’ll hope another takes up the torch in this conversation.

    Larry

    March 19, 2008 at 11:30 pm

  19. > Now since you have acknowledged the above facts, please tell us how non life became life?

    I have always been amused by the fact that creationists seem to assume that there is a fundamental difference between the type of matter in “life” and “nonlife”. This is the idea of vitalism, a concept that was disproved a long time ago.

    First, I must admit (as any good scientist would do) that there is a lot we don’t know about the origins of life on Earth. However, there are good reasons to suspect that it began with the first self-replicating organic molecules. They didn’t have to be nearly as complicated as DNA or even RNA, at least at first. Chemists at MIT created a simple self-replicating molecule called amino adenosine triacid ester. It didn’t need complex enzymes to reproduce, as modern day DNA does. Once you have self-replication, you can begin to have natural selection. Here, natural selection simply means that the molecules that are best at copying themselves become more abundant than those of lower fecundity. Nothing miraculous there. Researchers have seen a similar process unfold with RNA molecules in the lab. They put different RNA molecules in a test tube and varied the chemical environment. Naturally, some RNA molecules were better at copying themselves in certain environments, and the chemists soon learned to alter the evolution of the RNA by setting up different initial conditions. I should mention that large organic molecules do form in nature, even on Titan, a moon of Saturn.

    Of course, the genetic material in your body doesn’t just copy itself, it makes a body to protect itself and enhance its chances of creating more copies. Today, the job is done by transfer RNA, which attracts specific amino acids according to the sets of base pairs that it contains. These amino acids then form together into proteins, which essentially make everything else in your body (although quite an oversimplification). Amino acids certainly appear in nature. It’s not that hard to make them in a lab if you try to recreate the conditions of the early Earth. Urey and Miller demonstrated that in 1953. I know creationists never believe that, but it happened. And as we have learned more about the early Earth, the experiment has been changed and still confirms the concept.

    Once early replicators acquired a protective coat of protein, they may have been better able to survive different conditions. Early cell membranes could have given better protection to help ensure structural integrity until more copies could be made. Bubbles similar to the phospholipid bilayer in modern cells form spontaneously in nature. It is not unlikely whatsoever that they could have formed a bubble around early replicators. Once that happens, you evolve through natural selection some more sophisticated replication machinery, and before you know it, you have the first prokaryotes (bacteria). Keep in mind that prokaryotes were the only life for almost 2 billion years. Multicellular life took almost another billion years. If there was a creator who had us in mind at the beginning, he sure took a roundabout way to get there.

    Sorry for the long-winded explanation, but if you wanted to know how, that’s a start. Naturally, there are a lot of competing hypotheses and heated battle between scientists. But don’t take that as weakness, that means that progress is being made. That’s how we get closer to the truth, by presenting and refuting ideas. It’s what makes science fundamentally different than religion. There are a lot of things we don’t know, and some we may never know. But the questions we ask today come from the science done yesterday. If there’s a way to find the answers, it’s through science, not through prayer, divine revelation, or Bible reading. Read your Bible and tell me if God used polyphosphates to drive the polymerization of amino acids into polypeptide chains. Maybe organic chemists will find the answers if they pray hard enough.

    Eric

    March 20, 2008 at 5:42 am

  20. Now since you have acknowledged the above facts, please tell us how non life became life?

    An interesting question, but as Frantz and Larry say, all any of us can do is merely speculate. There are various parts to consider however, including the “top-down approach” and the “bottom-up approach” – the former considering what life we know to exist and speculate backwards, and the latter considering prebiotic chemistry and hypothesizing forwards.

    From the “top-down approach,” you have the RNA world hypothesis which is largely accepted now, as well as a set of only a fifty or so (out of a virtually inexhaustible list of possibilities) basic building blocks that make up the overwhelming proportion of molecular biology. How to put these two pieces of information together is challenging indeed, but the prebiotic building blocks appear to form quite easily, especially under somewhat extreme temperature and pressure conditions.

    Which leads us to the “bottom-up approach,” where various possibilities present themselves. Clay catalysis, iron-sulfur reduction, the reverse citric acid cycle, and other possibilities have been proposed. I’m personally very intrigued by the hypotheses presented by Günter Wächtershäuser and Harold Morowitz, suggesting a metabolism-first model (as opposed to a genes-first model).

    Clearly there are plenty of plausible possibilities therefore.

    Also, I have to agree with Frantz and Larry again – the switching of topics by dawkinswatch makes it appear that dawkinswatch has conceded that either (1) Hawking was not a creationist and the Big Bang poses no problem for atheists; and/or (2) he’s not content with a god of classical deism, and feels the need to suggest an interventionist god again.

    Which is it, or is it both?

    Wächtershäuser’s iron-sulfur world hypothesis, Morowitz’s

    Dan

    March 20, 2008 at 8:43 am

  21. Sorry for the last sentence. I forgot to delete my crib notes at the bottom of my comment.

    Dan

    March 20, 2008 at 8:46 am

  22. Dawkinswatch

    Before you can ask the question ‘How did non-life become life’ you need to have a good definition of what life is. Do you have one?

    Brian

    March 29, 2008 at 4:15 pm

  23. hi,beautiful jeans in your post,I love thatgreatjeans,I need to find one for me,bill

    lacoste minneapolis

    April 14, 2010 at 8:26 am

  24. great advice and sharing,I will buy one this great jeans for me .thanks

    Burtons Haynes

    April 14, 2010 at 3:47 pm

  25. TORTOISE (Hinduism) and DRAGON (Taoism) are symbols for ENERGY or WAVE, both are analog with MAGEN DAVID (Judaism). “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” is the metaphor, also Thawaf seven times circling around the Ka’ba and Sa’i oscillating along “the sinus” Marwah-Shafa during rituals of the Hajj (Abraham).
    “A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME – From the Big Bang to Black Hole” by Stephen W. Hawking is the best scientific interpretation of AL QUR’AN by a non believer. It is also a “genuine bridge stone” for comprehensive study of Theology. Surprise, this paradox is a miracle and blessing in disguise as well. So, it should be very wise and challenging for Moslem scholars to verify my discovery.
    NeoSUFI visionary strategic thinking.

    Tato Sugiarto

    August 24, 2011 at 10:11 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: