Stephen Hawking doesn't prove what he thinks he does

I just came across an article by Jay W. Richards, a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute. He is the author of Money, Greed and God as well as editor of the bookGod and Evolution. In his article "Did Physics Kill God?" Richards takes on Stephen Hawking.

Hawking, who holds the chair of mathematics at Cambridge University, announced in his new book The Grand Design that our understanding of physics shows that God did not create the universe. Hawking says because of gravity the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Of course, leading atheists like Richard Dawkins were delighted: "Darwin kicked God out of biology, but physics remained more uncertain. Hawking is now administering the coup de grace."

But Richard says Hawking's arguments are neither new nor compelling. He notes that Hawking is confusing physical laws with causal agents. He has focused on a physical law rather than deal with agents who can use those physical laws to create something that wasn't there before. He believes this is much like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the origin of the jet engine. Of course, we understand the laws of physics are there, but a person was needed to use those laws in such a way to create the jet engine. Similarly, someone would have to use the law of gravity to produce the universe.

Richards then says Hawking has made a major mistake by claiming the universe created itself from nothing. Actually gravity is something, not nothing. Hawking has clearly not explained why there is something rather than nothing. He has only asserted that something comes from something. No big insight there.

Toward the end of the article, Richards explores how over the last 100 years physics has been making trouble for materialism. In the 19th century, most scientists believed the universe was eternal, so there was no need to worry about a cause or beginning for it. But we now know the universe had a beginning in the finite past, thanks to astronomy and physics. Many scientists hated this idea of a cosmic beginning because they knew that anything that begins to exist must have a separate cause for its existence.

Added to this is the evidence for fine tuning in the universe. We have discovered that the universe has basic laws, constants, and initial conditions which have been precisely calibrated for the existence of complex life. Even someone like Fred Hoyle, a committed atheist, admitted the universe looked like a place where some sort of super intellect had monkeyed with physics.

Richards ends his piece by admitting the issues involved are exquisitely complicated. He cheerfully recognizes that reasonable people can disagree about what these issues mean. But his point is that the case is far from settled. Stephen Hawking's release of his new book is a great time to remind ourselves of the value of critical thinking. Whenever we hear a challenge to our Christian beliefs by a noted scholar, we shouldn't be swayed by the person's credentials. We simply have to ask ourselves what is being said and what proof is offered. In Hawking' case, he has claimed something which he hasn't proved. As Greg Koukl says, smart people can make stupid comments, especially in areas like metaphysics and religion. We don't need to panic at wild claims. Sit back and ask questions to see where the truth really lies. It's back to the drawing board for evolutionists seeking to displace God from His creation.