Stephen Hawking jumps the shark

Point 3: Hawking in his book discusses the “model dependent reality” of the universe.  It holds that 2 people, because of their different vantage points, can have 2 different measurements of the same event, but BOTH are correct, because they are operating under the information available to them from their view.

In other words, if we limit all knowledge in the universe to everything Stephen Hawking knows, then Stephen Hawking knows everything.  Nice.  Here is the example Stephen gives:

Person one is on an airplane bouncing a ball, and he will measure that the ball bounces in the same spot.  Person two is on the ground looking up at the plane. Person two will measure that the ball is bouncing in different spots because he sees the plane moving forward.  So if each is limited to what he knows, both are right even though they have different measurements.

But, Professor Hawking — suppose I build a plane with a glass bottom. Now both will see the same thing.  My point is that we shouldn’t limit ourselves to what we (or you) know from one vantage point.  We should try to look past Planck Time to find out what is back there.

Point 4: It’s common for people to do this bad math: We have nine planets circling our sun, there are billions and billions of suns, so with those odds, there must be life elsewhere.  The problem is, there is so much that has to line up perfectly to get life on a planet, the odds are actually long AGAINST there being life elsewhere.  This is the basis of “Intelligent Design” arguments.

In his book Hawking addresses Intelligent Design, and in such beautiful supportive words that Michael Behe would be smart to repeat it.  But in the end, does Hawking say our planet overcoming those incredibly long odds to have life is proof of an intentional plan?  No.  Hawking’s conclusion: We’re “lucky.”  Lucky?  Gee thanks, Mr. Science guy.  You’re now employing the same analysis used by my bookie.

Point 5: Now for the Grand Design promised by the book title.  Hawking gives it an inauspicious introduction.  When I got to the last chapter, it said, “see chapter 6,” which I had already read.  How’d I miss something so important in Chapter 6?

I missed it because what Hawking is hawking as the theory that excludes God isn’t exactly new.  He cited “M Theory.”

M-Theory holds that there is not one universe with one arrow of time, but multiple, perhaps an infinite number of universes, with every possible history that could occur playing out.

If Gene Rodenberry of Star Trek were alive, he might sue Hawking, because there was an episode where Kirk, Spock and the gang went to an alternate history where the Communists won the cold war.  Nothing new to see here.

Hawking’s contention is that the multi-universes arise like tiny bubbles, each potentially a universe.  “Tiny bubbles” was a cute Don Ho song but a lousy candidate as a replacement for God.  How do the tiny bubbles that result in a universe arise?  Hawking’s answer is “gravity.”

But how do we have gravity in the absence of mass?  Where did the mass that created the gravity come from?  If the gravity is being generated by light or energy, where is the light and energy coming from?  Even “vacuum fluctuations” involve energy from somewhere. If Hawking has answered these questions, he didn’t say so in his book.  Thanks for nothing.

In provable science, matter still can’t appear form nothing, and despite his pronouncement, nothing in Hawking’s book shows that it can.  Science remains the same today as the day before Hawking wrote his book.

In asserting that the universe doesn’t need God, it appears Hawking has only confirmed that science no longer needs him.

Tommy De Seno is a political columnist with the TriCityNews in New Jersey, a Fox News Forum contributor and editor of the blog Justified Right.