April 24, 2015

From Gary... Capitalism, religion and a choice


This picture made me uncomfortable today. Why? Not sure, but I just have never thought of capitalism in this way. Could this be true? For some people it may be, but with the emphasis upon materialism in our society I have to wonder.  As a Christian, I must turn to the Scriptures for guidance- Jesus said...

Matthew, Chapter 6 (WEB)
 24  “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can’t serve both God and Mammon. 
25  Therefore I tell you, don’t be anxious for your life: what you will eat, or what you will drink; nor yet for your body, what you will wear. Isn’t life more than food, and the body more than clothing?   
26  See the birds of the sky, that they don’t sow, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns. Your heavenly Father feeds them. Aren’t you of much more value than they? 


27  “Which of you, by being anxious, can add one moment to his lifespan?   

28  Why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow. They don’t toil, neither do they spin,   
29 yet I tell you that even Solomon in all his glory was not dressed like one of these.   
30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today exists, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, won’t he much more clothe you, you of little faith? 


31  “Therefore don’t be anxious, saying, ‘What will we eat?’, ‘What will we drink?’ or, ‘With what will we be clothed?’   

32  For the Gentiles seek after all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.   
33  But seek first God’s Kingdom, and his righteousness; and all these things will be given to you as well.   
34 Therefore don’t be anxious for tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Each day’s own evil is sufficient. 

There is nothing wrong with the concept of money, as long as it is not exalted above the status of a mere tool. There can be only one God in your life (vs. 24 above); trust God- in times of trouble, all else will fail!!!

From Gary... Bible Reading April 24



Bible Reading  

April 24

The World English Bible

Apr. 24
Deuteronomy 3, 4

Deu 3:1 Then we turned, and went up the way to Bashan: and Og the king of Bashan came out against us, he and all his people, to battle at Edrei.
Deu 3:2 Yahweh said to me, Don't fear him; for I have delivered him, and all his people, and his land, into your hand; and you shall do to him as you did to Sihon king of the Amorites, who lived at Heshbon.
Deu 3:3 So Yahweh our God delivered into our hand Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people: and we struck him until none was left to him remaining.
Deu 3:4 We took all his cities at that time; there was not a city which we didn't take from them; sixty cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan.
Deu 3:5 All these were cities fortified with high walls, gates, and bars; besides the unwalled towns a great many.
Deu 3:6 We utterly destroyed them, as we did to Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying every inhabited city, with the women and the little ones.
Deu 3:7 But all the livestock, and the spoil of the cities, we took for a prey to ourselves.
Deu 3:8 We took the land at that time out of the hand of the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan, from the valley of the Arnon to Mount Hermon;
Deu 3:9 (which Hermon the Sidonians call Sirion, and the Amorites call it Senir;)
Deu 3:10 all the cities of the plain, and all Gilead, and all Bashan, to Salecah and Edrei, cities of the kingdom of Og in Bashan.
Deu 3:11 (For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of the Rephaim; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; isn't it in Rabbah of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was its length, and four cubits its breadth, after the cubit of a man.)
Deu 3:12 This land we took in possession at that time: from Aroer, which is by the valley of the Arnon, and half the hill country of Gilead, and its cities, gave I to the Reubenites and to the Gadites:
Deu 3:13 and the rest of Gilead, and all Bashan, the kingdom of Og, gave I to the half-tribe of Manasseh; all the region of Argob, even all Bashan. (The same is called the land of Rephaim.
Deu 3:14 Jair the son of Manasseh took all the region of Argob, to the border of the Geshurites and the Maacathites, and called them, even Bashan, after his own name, Havvoth Jair, to this day.)
Deu 3:15 I gave Gilead to Machir.
Deu 3:16 To the Reubenites and to the Gadites I gave from Gilead even to the valley of the Arnon, the middle of the valley, and the border of it, even to the river Jabbok, which is the border of the children of Ammon;
Deu 3:17 the Arabah also, and the Jordan and the border of it, from Chinnereth even to the sea of the Arabah, the Salt Sea, under the slopes of Pisgah eastward.
Deu 3:18 I commanded you at that time, saying, Yahweh your God has given you this land to possess it: you shall pass over armed before your brothers the children of Israel, all the men of valor.
Deu 3:19 But your wives, and your little ones, and your livestock, (I know that you have much livestock), shall abide in your cities which I have given you,
Deu 3:20 until Yahweh gives rest to your brothers, as to you, and they also possess the land which Yahweh your God gives them beyond the Jordan: then you shall return every man to his possession, which I have given you.
Deu 3:21 I commanded Joshua at that time, saying, Your eyes have seen all that Yahweh your God has done to these two kings: so shall Yahweh do to all the kingdoms where you go over.
Deu 3:22 You shall not fear them; for Yahweh your God, he it is who fights for you.
Deu 3:23 I begged Yahweh at that time, saying,
Deu 3:24 Lord Yahweh, you have begun to show your servant your greatness, and your strong hand: for what god is there in heaven or in earth, that can do according to your works, and according to your mighty acts?
Deu 3:25 Please let me go over and see the good land that is beyond the Jordan, that goodly mountain, and Lebanon.
Deu 3:26 But Yahweh was angry with me for your sakes, and didn't listen to me; and Yahweh said to me, Let it suffice you; speak no more to me of this matter.
Deu 3:27 Go up to the top of Pisgah, and lift up your eyes westward, and northward, and southward, and eastward, and see with your eyes: for you shall not go over this Jordan.
Deu 3:28 But commission Joshua, and encourage him, and strengthen him; for he shall go over before this people, and he shall cause them to inherit the land which you shall see.
Deu 3:29 So we abode in the valley over against Beth Peor.
Deu 4:1 Now, Israel, listen to the statutes and to the ordinances, which I teach you, to do them; that you may live, and go in and possess the land which Yahweh, the God of your fathers, gives you.
Deu 4:2 You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish from it, that you may keep the commandments of Yahweh your God which I command you.
Deu 4:3 Your eyes have seen what Yahweh did because of Baal Peor; for all the men who followed Baal Peor, Yahweh your God has destroyed them from the midst of you.
Deu 4:4 But you who did cling to Yahweh your God are all alive this day.
Deu 4:5 Behold, I have taught you statutes and ordinances, even as Yahweh my God commanded me, that you should do so in the midst of the land where you go in to possess it.
Deu 4:6 Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.
Deu 4:7 For what great nation is there, that has a god so near to them, as Yahweh our God is whenever we call on him?
Deu 4:8 What great nation is there, that has statutes and ordinances so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?
Deu 4:9 Only take heed to yourself, and keep your soul diligently, lest you forget the things which your eyes saw, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life; but make them known to your children and your children's children;
Deu 4:10 the day that you stood before Yahweh your God in Horeb, when Yahweh said to me, Assemble me the people, and I will make them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days that they live on the earth, and that they may teach their children.
Deu 4:11 You came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire to the heart of the sky, with darkness, cloud, and thick darkness.
Deu 4:12 Yahweh spoke to you out of the midst of the fire: you heard the voice of words, but you saw no form; only you heard a voice.
Deu 4:13 He declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even the ten commandments; and he wrote them on two tables of stone.
Deu 4:14 Yahweh commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and ordinances, that you might do them in the land where you go over to possess it.
Deu 4:15 Take therefore good heed to yourselves; for you saw no manner of form on the day that Yahweh spoke to you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire.
Deu 4:16 Lest you corrupt yourselves, and make yourself an engraved image in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female,
Deu 4:17 the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the sky,
Deu 4:18 the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth;
Deu 4:19 and lest you lift up your eyes to the sky, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, even all the army of the sky, you are drawn away and worship them, and serve them, which Yahweh your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole sky.
Deu 4:20 But Yahweh has taken you, and brought you forth out of the iron furnace, out of Egypt, to be to him a people of inheritance, as at this day.
Deu 4:21 Furthermore Yahweh was angry with me for your sakes, and swore that I should not go over the Jordan, and that I should not go in to that good land, which Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance:
Deu 4:22 but I must die in this land, I must not go over the Jordan; but you shall go over, and possess that good land.
Deu 4:23 Take heed to yourselves, lest you forget the covenant of Yahweh your God, which he made with you, and make you an engraved image in the form of anything which Yahweh your God has forbidden you.
Deu 4:24 For Yahweh your God is a devouring fire, a jealous God.
Deu 4:25 When you shall father children, and children's children, and you shall have been long in the land, and shall corrupt yourselves, and make an engraved image in the form of anything, and shall do that which is evil in the sight of Yahweh your God, to provoke him to anger;
Deu 4:26 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that you shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto you go over the Jordan to possess it; you shall not prolong your days on it, but shall utterly be destroyed.
Deu 4:27 Yahweh will scatter you among the peoples, and you shall be left few in number among the nations, where Yahweh shall lead you away.
Deu 4:28 There you shall serve gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.
Deu 4:29 But from there you shall seek Yahweh your God, and you shall find him, when you search after him with all your heart and with all your soul.
Deu 4:30 When you are in oppression, and all these things are come on you, in the latter days you shall return to Yahweh your God, and listen to his voice:
Deu 4:31 for Yahweh your God is a merciful God; he will not fail you, neither destroy you, nor forget the covenant of your fathers which he swore to them.
Deu 4:32 For ask now of the days that are past, which were before you, since the day that God created man on the earth, and from the one end of the sky to the other, whether there has beenany such thing as this great thing is, or has been heard like it?
Deu 4:33 Did ever a people hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as you have heard, and live?
Deu 4:34 Or has God tried to go and take him a nation from the midst of another nation, by trials, by signs, and by wonders, and by war, and by a mighty hand, and by an outstretched arm, and by great terrors, according to all that Yahweh your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes?
Deu 4:35 It was shown to you so that you might know that Yahweh is God. There is no one else besides him.
Deu 4:36 Out of heaven he made you to hear his voice, that he might instruct you: and on earth he made you to see his great fire; and you heard his words out of the midst of the fire.
Deu 4:37 Because he loved your fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them, and brought you out with his presence, with his great power, out of Egypt;
Deu 4:38 to drive out nations from before you greater and mightier than you, to bring you in, to give you their land for an inheritance, as at this day.
Deu 4:39 Know therefore this day, and lay it to your heart, that Yahweh he is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is none else.
Deu 4:40 You shall keep his statutes, and his commandments, which I command you this day, that it may go well with you, and with your children after you, and that you may prolong your days in the land, which Yahweh your God gives you, forever.
Deu 4:41 Then Moses set apart three cities beyond the Jordan toward the sunrise;
Deu 4:42 that the manslayer might flee there, who kills his neighbor unawares, and didn't hate him in time past; and that fleeing to one of these cities he might live:
Deu 4:43 namely, Bezer in the wilderness, in the plain country, for the Reubenites; and Ramoth in Gilead, for the Gadites; and Golan in Bashan, for the Manassites.
Deu 4:44 This is the law which Moses set before the children of Israel:
Deu 4:45 these are the testimonies, and the statutes, and the ordinances, which Moses spoke to the children of Israel, when they came forth out of Egypt,
Deu 4:46 beyond the Jordan, in the valley over against Beth Peor, in the land of Sihon king of the Amorites, who lived at Heshbon, whom Moses and the children of Israel struck, when they came forth out of Egypt.
Deu 4:47 They took his land in possession, and the land of Og king of Bashan, the two kings of the Amorites, who were beyond the Jordan toward the sunrise;
Deu 4:48 from Aroer, which is on the edge of the valley of the Arnon, even to Mount Sion (the same is Hermon),

Deu 4:49 and all the Arabah beyond the Jordan eastward, even to the sea of the Arabah, under the slopes of Pisgah.

 Apr. 24, 25
Luke 14

Luk 14:1 It happened, when he went into the house of one of the rulers of the Pharisees on a Sabbath to eat bread, that they were watching him.
Luk 14:2 Behold, a certain man who had dropsy was in front of him.
Luk 14:3 Jesus, answering, spoke to the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"
Luk 14:4 But they were silent. He took him, and healed him, and let him go.
Luk 14:5 He answered them, "Which of you, if your son or an ox fell into a well, wouldn't immediately pull him out on a Sabbath day?"
Luk 14:6 They couldn't answer him regarding these things.
Luk 14:7 He spoke a parable to those who were invited, when he noticed how they chose the best seats, and said to them,
Luk 14:8 "When you are invited by anyone to a marriage feast, don't sit in the best seat, since perhaps someone more honorable than you might be invited by him,
Luk 14:9 and he who invited both of you would come and tell you, 'Make room for this person.' Then you would begin, with shame, to take the lowest place.
Luk 14:10 But when you are invited, go and sit in the lowest place, so that when he who invited you comes, he may tell you, 'Friend, move up higher.' Then you will be honored in the presence of all who sit at the table with you.
Luk 14:11 For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted."
Luk 14:12 He also said to the one who had invited him, "When you make a dinner or a supper, don't call your friends, nor your brothers, nor your kinsmen, nor rich neighbors, or perhaps they might also return the favor, and pay you back.
Luk 14:13 But when you make a feast, ask the poor, the maimed, the lame, or the blind;
Luk 14:14 and you will be blessed, because they don't have the resources to repay you. For you will be repaid in the resurrection of the righteous."
Luk 14:15 When one of those who sat at the table with him heard these things, he said to him, "Blessed is he who will feast in the Kingdom of God!"
Luk 14:16 But he said to him, "A certain man made a great supper, and he invited many people.
Luk 14:17 He sent out his servant at supper time to tell those who were invited, 'Come, for everything is ready now.'
Luk 14:18 They all as one began to make excuses. "The first said to him, 'I have bought a field, and I must go and see it. Please have me excused.'
Luk 14:19 "Another said, 'I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I must go try them out. Please have me excused.'
Luk 14:20 "Another said, 'I have married a wife, and therefore I can't come.'
Luk 14:21 "That servant came, and told his lord these things. Then the master of the house, being angry, said to his servant, 'Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in the poor, maimed, blind, and lame.'
Luk 14:22 "The servant said, 'Lord, it is done as you commanded, and there is still room.'
Luk 14:23 "The lord said to the servant, 'Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.
Luk 14:24 For I tell you that none of those men who were invited will taste of my supper.' "
Luk 14:25 Now great multitudes were going with him. He turned and said to them,
Luk 14:26 "If anyone comes to me, and doesn't hate his own father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he can't be my disciple.
Luk 14:27 Whoever doesn't bear his own cross, and come after me, can't be my disciple.
Luk 14:28 For which of you, desiring to build a tower, doesn't first sit down and count the cost, to see if he has enough to complete it?
Luk 14:29 Or perhaps, when he has laid a foundation, and is not able to finish, everyone who sees begins to mock him,
Luk 14:30 saying, 'This man began to build, and wasn't able to finish.'
Luk 14:31 Or what king, as he goes to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand?
Luk 14:32 Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends an envoy, and asks for conditions of peace.
Luk 14:33 So therefore whoever of you who doesn't renounce all that he has, he can't be my disciple.
Luk 14:34 Salt is good, but if the salt becomes flat and tasteless, with what do you season it?
Luk 14:35 It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile. It is thrown out. He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

From Jim McGuiggan... Bulls and Authority

Bulls and Authority

A Department of Water Resources representative stops at a Texas ranch and talks with an old rancher. He tells the rancher, "I need to inspect your ranch for your water allocation."
The old man was busy, looks up and says, “Okay, but stay out of that field over there.”

The rep isn’t used to being told what he can’t do, flashes his credentials and says, “Mister, I have the authority of the Federal Government with me. See this card? This card means I am allowed to go WHEREVER I WISH on any agricultural land. No questions asked or answered. Have I made myself clear?”

 The old rancher nods politely and goes about his chores. Before long he hears loud screams and spies the Water Rep running for his life and close behind is the rancher’s bull. The bull’s gaining with every step.

 The Rep’s clearly terrified so the old man downs his tools, runs to the fence and yells at the top of his lungs.....

”Your card! Show him your card!”
I suspect this is the kind of thing Paul would say to those who waved their letters of recommendation in the faces of the people everywhere they went (compare 2 Corinthians 3:1). When they came face to face with Jesus Paul might shout: “Your letters; show him your letters!”

Come to think of it, it won’t matter much what we wave in front of us when we come to meet God; not money, proof of popularity, size of our congregation, list of books written, conferences headlined, the famous names we can drop, the movies we starred in, the records we held—these aren’t the effective “Open Sesame” into the blessed presence of God.

It won’t help a lot either to give a long list of venerable names of people who held our views—that won’t make them wholesome or true. Nor will it help to rehearse the name of influential people who said that our views don’t matter, that it makes no difference what we believe.

It won’t help either, to have and to recite the correct answers to all the theological questions if uncaringly we’ve left behind people we were given the opportunity to protect and care for. 1 Corinthians 13 fits in here somehow.

©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.

Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, theabidingword.com.

A.D. on Louisiana Diplomas by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1532


A.D. on Louisiana Diplomas

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Louisiana’s education superintendent has ordered the recall and destruction of 53,000 blank high school diplomas because the date was changed from A.D. (“the year of our Lord”) to C.E. (the nonreligious “common era”). The change had been made by a department committee that acted without the authorization of the Louisiana Education Superintendent. The department committee assumed that eliminating a reference to God was merely an administrative change that did not require authorization. The superintendent is to be congratulated for challenging their assumption.
Should America abandon A.D. and B.C. (“Before Christ”) in deference to those who reject the Christian worldview? To do so would be to abandon the very foundations of American civilization. It would be to abandon the foundational document of the country—the United States Constitution. How so? Just prior to the listing of the 39 signatories—men who placed their signatures on this paramount document as indication of their approval of its contents—the Constitution’s own closing remark reads:
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names (“The U.S. Constitution,” emp. added).
If the Louisiana education department committee had been providing students with copies of the federal Constitution, would they have ordered the printer to censor it as well?

REFERENCES

Mobley, Amber (2005), “Diploma Recall Shouldn’t Affect Local Graduations, Officials Say,” The Shreveport Times, May 4, [On-line], URL: http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050504/ NEWS01/505040313/1002/NEWS.
The U.S Constitution, [On-line], URL: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html.

“Abiogenesis is Irrelevant to Evolution” by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1631

“Abiogenesis is Irrelevant to Evolution”

by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

The Law of Biogenesis tells us that in nature, life comes only from life of its kind (Miller, 2012). Therefore, abiogenesis (i.e., life arising from non-living materials) is impossible, according to the scientific evidence. How then can atheistic theories like Darwinian evolution be considered acceptable? There is a growing trend among evolutionists today to attempt to sidestep the problem of abiogenesis by contending that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, but rather is a theory which starts with life already in existence and explains the origin of all species from that original life form. However, this approach is merely wishful thinking—an effort to avoid the logical import of the Law of Biogenesis.
Historically, evolutionists have recognized that abiogenesis is a fundamental assumption inherent in evolutionary theory, and intuitively must be so. In 1960, British evolutionary physiologist, G.A. Kerkut, listed abiogenesis as the first assumption in a list of non-provable assumptions upon which evolution is founded. “The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred” (Kerkut, 1960, p. 6). Evolutionary theory is an attempt to explain the origin of species through natural means—without supernatural Creation. Logically, unless you concede the existence of God and subscribe to theistic evolution in order to explain the origin of life (a position that has been shown to be unsustainable, cf. Thompson, 2000), abiogenesis must have originally occurred in order to commence the process of Darwinian evolution. Abiogenesis is required by evolution as the starting point.
Further, atheistic evolutionary geologist, Robert Hazen, who received his doctoral degree from Harvard, admitted that he assumes abiogenesis occurred. In his lecture series, Origins of Life, he says, “In this lecture series I make a basic assumption that life emerged by some kind of natural process. I propose that life arose by a sequence of events that are completely consistent with natural laws of chemistry and physics” (2005, emp. added). Again, evolution is an attempt to explain life through natural means, and abiogenesis must go hand-in-hand with such a theory. Hazen further stated that in his assumption of abiogenesis, he is “like most other scientists” (2005). It makes perfect sense for atheistic evolutionists to admit their belief in abiogenesis. Without abiogenesis in place, there is no starting point for atheistic evolution to occur. However, many evolutionists do not want to admit such a belief too loudly, since such a belief has absolutely no scientific evidence to support it. It is a blind faith—a religious dogma.
It is also true that atheists themselves use the term “evolution” as a generalized catchall word encompassing all materialistic origin models, including those dealing with the origin of the cosmos, not just the origin of species. A simple Google search of the keywords, “cosmic evolution,” illustrates that contention. Consider, for example, the title of Harvard University astrophysicist Eric Chaisson’s Web site: “Cosmic Evolution: From Big Bang to Humankind” (2012). Consider also the comments of NASA chief historian, Steven Dick: “Cosmic evolution begins…with the formation of stars and planetary systems, proceeds…to primitive and complex life, and culminates with intelligence, technology and astronomers…contemplating the universe…. This story of the life of the universe, and our place in it, is known as cosmic evolution” (2005). If atheism were true, in this mythical story of how the Universe evolved from nothing to everything, abiogenesis must have occurred somewhere along the way. Thus, abiogenesis is a fundamental, implied phenomenon of evolutionary theory. Creationists are merely using atheistic evolutionists’ terms in the same way they use them.
The truth is, one cannot logically commence a study of Life Science or Biology—studies which are intimately linked with the theory of evolution by the bulk of the scientific community today—without first studying the origin of that life which allegedly evolved from a single-celled organism into the various forms of life on Earth today. Biology and Life Science textbooks today, with almost unanimity, include a discussion of biogenesis, abiogenesis (ironically, discussing the work of Pasteur, Spallanzani, and Redi, who disproved the theory of abiogenesis), and extensive discussions of evolutionary theory. The evolutionists themselves inevitably couple Biology and Life Science with evolution, as though they are one and the same. But a study of life—biology—must have a starting point. So, evolutionists themselves link the problem of abiogenesis to evolution. If the evolutionary community wishes to separate the study of biology from evolution—a position I would strongly recommend—then the evolutionist might be able to put his head in the sand and ignore the abiogenesis problem, but not while the evolutionist couples evolution so intimately with biology.
The reality is that abiogenesis stands alongside evolutionary theory as a fundamental plank of atheism and will remain there. The two are intimately linked and stand or fall together. It is time for the naturalist to forthrightly admit that his religious belief in evolution is based on a blind acceptance of an unscientific pheonomenon.

REFERENCES

Chaisson, Eric (2012), “Cosmic Evolution: From Big Bang to Humankind,” Harvard College Observatory, https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html.
Dick, Steven J. (2005), “Why We Explore: Our Place in the Universe,” NASA,http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/whyweexplore/Why_We_13.html
Hazen, Robert (2005), Origins of Life, audio-taped lecture (Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company).
Kerkut, George A. (1960), The Implications of Evolution (London: Pergamon).
Miller, Jeff (2012), “The Law of Biogenesis,” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-11, January,http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1018&article=1722.
Thompson, Bert (2000), Creation Compromises (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

A Review of Discovery Channel's "Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?" by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4119


A Review of Discovery Channel's "Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?"

by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Perhaps you saw the advertisements leading up to the commencement of Discovery Channel’s latest television series titled, “Curiosity,” in which things that humans are curious about are featured in each week’s new episode. The first show addressed the question, “Did God Create the Universe?” (“Curiosity…,” 2011). Perhaps you, like me, were hopeful that this often biased media outlet and longtime supporter of the liberal agenda would give the Creation perspective a fair shake. Sadly, hopes were dashed. For one hour, renowned atheist, theoretical physicist, and cosmologist of Cambridge University, Stephen Hawking, was given a platform to spread his atheistic perspective.
Throughout the show, Hawking is the speaker, although the voice switches between his computer-generated voice (Hawking has Lou Gehrig’s disease and cannot speak) and that of a man speaking for him with a British accent. The primary thrust of the show was for Hawking to assert the idea that the reasons many people have had in the past for being theists—namely that there are things we cannot explain in the Universe without a Supernatural cause—are no longer relevant. Though people used to attribute thunder and lightning to gods, we now know, scientifically speaking, what is actually occurring. So, a higher being is not necessary as an explanation, according to Hawking. He believes that everything, including origins, can be explained through science and nature without the need for God. While wrapping up the show, after discussing his theory about the origin of the Universe, he says, “So, what does that mean on our quest to find out if there is a God? It means that…you don’t need a God to create it. The Universe is the ultimate free lunch” (“Curiosity…”). Though he boldly and presumptuously makes that claim, he does not even address many of the arguments theists have used for centuries which still stand as proof positive that God exists (e.g., the Moral Argument, Teleological Argument, Aesthetical Argument, Intuitional Argument, and Ontological Argument). He spends his time addressing only one of the arguments—the Cosmological Argument, along with the law of nature closely connected with it, the Law of Causality. His dealings with that argument illuminate the fact that atheism, even in this enlightened age, is still an inadequate worldview.

Logical Fallacies

Much of the first part of the show tap dances around the common logical fallacies known as an “appeal to consequences” and “straw man” (“Appeal to Consequences,” 2009; “Straw Man Fallacy,” 2009). The viewer is subtly encouraged to be an atheist (1) because of the pagan religious beliefs of the Vikings and other religionists of old who erroneously used various gods as a way to explain common natural phenomena, and (2) because of the inappropriate behavior of certain Catholic authorities in antiquity who viewed belief in the laws of nature as a heretical concept. The impression is left that such examples exemplify the nature of theism.
Such individuals in history, carrying the banner of theism, have been sadly misled, but such examples do not exhibit the nature of true theism. The views and practices of such people should not be a factor in the determination of truth, just as the views of the scientific world in the 1400s that spontaneous generation occurs should not be used as a reason to reject science. Likewise, the behaviors of some atheists throughout history, including Hawking himself, should not be used to dismiss atheism. Truth stands on its own, regardless of those who do or do not espouse it or represent it accurately.

“No Cook Needed” for the Universe Recipe

Halfway through the show, Hawking gets to his defense of his primary assertion—God is not necessary for the creation of the Universe. He boldly states, “Despite the complexity and variety of the Universe, it turns out that to make one, you need just three ingredients” (“Curiosity…”). He explains that those ingredients are matter, energy, and space, and further explains that matter and energy, according to Einstein, are ultimately one and the same. So, Hawking revises his cosmic cookbook and asserts that only two ingredients are really needed to make a Universe—energy and space. These, Hawking states, “were spontaneously generated in an event we now call ‘The Big Bang’” (“Curiosity…”).
How can one get these two ingredients from nothing? Hawking uses an illustration involving a man who builds a hill by digging a hole in the ground, thus perfectly balancing out the “positive” hill with the “negative” hole. He then claims, “This is the principle behind what happened right at the beginning of the Universe. When the Big Bang produced a vast amount of positive energy, it simultaneously produced the same amount of negative energy” (“Curiosity…”). But how could a bang “produce” or create something from nothing? A bang has no creative power. It is merely an explosion that is generated from already existing substances. Expansion will occur in an explosion, sometimes resulting in an enormous blast radius in comparison to its initial state, but there must initially be something to explode and expand from. Using Hawking’s analogy, how could a hole or hill be made without first having dirt—or in the case of the supposed Universe creation, energy? Where did the dirt, or energy, first come from?
Although such a contention is logically impossible, Hawking asserts that quantum mechanics provides the answer. According to Hawking, at the sub-atomic level, “conjuring something out of nothing is possible, at least for a short while” (“Curiosity…,” emp. added). Particles “can appear at random—stick around for a while and then vanish again to reappear somewhere else” (“Curiosity…,” emp. added). Since this happens, theoretically, in the sub-atomic world, then according to Hawking, the Universe could have popped into existence from nothing as do these particles. How, exactly, it follows from quantum particle generation that spontaneous Universe generation is possible is a mystery, especially without any empirical evidence to support such a contention. Further, how, exactly, would spontaneous energy generation work without violating the First Law of Thermodynamics—i.e., that energy cannot be created or destroyed in nature, but can only change forms (see Miller, 2007)? If the Universe—all nature with all of its space, energy, and matter—came into existence on its own from nothing, the First Law would be violated.
As will be discussed, Hawking firmly believes in the immutability of the laws of nature and their application to the Universe as a whole. So, he would not wish to contradict his firm reliance on the laws of nature by holding to a theory that would violate one of those laws—and yet, his position (i.e., all energy coming from nothing) requires such a violation. Notice, however, that he contradicts himself on this matter. While he wants to believe that everything came from nothing, as his own statements imply, the alleged popping particles are actually already in existence and merely disappear and “reappear,” jumping around to different places. Thus, the ultimate problem with the atheistic position remains. Where did these particles originally come from? And where’s the empirical evidence that these particles that pop in and out of existence could stick around for the alleged billions of years of our existence, instead of the “short while” he asserts is possible? He does not explain. The truth is,there is no empirical evidence to verify the theory that sub-atomic particles could pop into existence and stick around for long periods of time at all, much less develop into a Universe over billions of years. That being the case, how would we expect Hawking to press the matter further? He cannot press what he cannot prove, and therefore, he moves on without further presentation of evidence. He condescendingly alleges, “Unless mathematics is your thing, this is hard to grasp, but it’s true” (“Curiosity…”). So, we are left to just blindly take his word for it and trust that he has the answer—though he will not share it.

Quantum Mechanics and Universe Generation

Stephen Hawking in 1999
Though Hawking does not enter into a discussion of the topic, a review of the scientific literature on the idea of quantum vacuum fluctuations accounting for the creation of the Universe reveals that such a theory does not actually start with nothing and end with something—which is what Hawking needs in order to eliminate the necessity of a higher being. In keeping with the First Law of Thermodynamics, quantum theories start with something and end with something. So, quantum mechanics does not provide an answer as to where the original “something” came from. Prominent humanist mathematician and science writer, Martin Gardner, wrote: “It is fashionable now to conjecture that the big bang was caused by a random quantum fluctuation in a vacuum devoid of space and time. But of course such a vacuum is a far cry from nothing” (2000, p. 303, emp. added). Philip Yam of Scientific American wrote: “Energy in the vacuum, though, is very much real. According to modern physics, a vacuum isn’t a pocket of nothingness. It churns with unseen activity” (1997, p. 82, emp. added). Edward Tryon, professor of physics at Hunter College in Manhattan, proposed the idea that the Universe could be the result of a large-scale vacuum energy fluctuation (1973). Alan Guth, professor of physics at M.I.T., wrote in response: “In this context, a proposal that the universe was created from empty space is no more fundamental than a proposal that the universe was spawned by a piece of rubber. It might be true, but one would still want to ask where the piece of rubber came from” (1997, p. 273). Theoretical physicist Alexander Vilenkin, a professor of physics and director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University, while explaining the problems inherent in Tryon’s work, said:
A more fundamental problem is that Tryon’s scenario does not really explain the origin of the universe. A quantum fluctuation of the vacuum assumes that there was a vacuum of some pre-existing space. And we now know that “vacuum” is very different from “nothing.” Vacuum, or empty space, has energy and tension, it can bend and warp, so it is unquestionably something (2006, p. 185, ital. in orig.).
Vilenkin went on to propose that quantum tunneling could be the answer to the creation of the Universe out of nothing. However, quantum tunneling starts with something and ends with something as well. Particles that can jump or tunnel through barriers still must initially exist to do so. So, the problem remains. There must be an ultimate Cause of the Universe. According to Hawking, in order to create a Universe, “you need” energy and space (“Curiosity…”). Though he boldly claims his theory provides these entities, his claims fall quite short of the truth. His needs simply remain unmet—without a Creator.

“There is No Time For God”

Towards the end of the episode, again without having addressed the multitude of arguments that theists have made over the centuries, Hawking asserts that “[t]he role played by time at the beginning of the Universe is, I believe, the final key to removing the need for a Grand Designer and revealing how the Universe created itself” (“Curiosity…”).  According to Hawking, inside a “black hole itself, time doesn’t exist, and that’s exactly what happened at the start of the Universe” (“Curiosity…”). He then claims that since time does not exist in a black hole and the initial moments of the Big Bang were supposedly something of a black hole, there was no time before the Big Bang. He asserts:
You can’t get to a time before the Big Bang, because there was no before the Big Bang. We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me, this means that there is no possibility for a Creator, because there is no time for a Creator to have existed…. Time didn’t exist before the Big Bang. So, there is no time for God to make the Universe in (“Curiosity…”).
Setting aside the unsubstantiated assertion that Hawking can know with complete certainty anything about the true nature of a black hole (and whether they even exist; cf. Muir, 2002 and “New Theories Dispute the Existence of Black Holes,” 2002), and therefore, whether or not he can know the theoretical idea that time does not exist within one, there are still problems with Hawking’s claims. First of all, it is true that Einstein showed that there appears to be a correlation between gravity and time. Perfectly synchronized atomic clocks placed at different elevations on the Earth—and thus, with differing local gravitational accelerations—do not “tick” the same. The higher the gravitational force, the slower time appears to move. So, theoretically, on an entity of infinite mass and infinitesimal volume, and therefore, infinite gravitational acceleration, time would stop. Hawking implies that the initial “cosmic egg”—the “ylem,” as it has been called—was just such an entity. As Robert Jastrow of NASA stated, originally “all matter in the Universe was compressed into an infinitely dense and hot mass” that exploded in the Big Bang (1977, pp. 2-3, emp. added). The problem is that the hypothesis that such an entity was ever in existence is not in keeping with the contentions of Big Bang cosmologists themselves, much less scientific evidence.
First of all, Jastrow’s statements, “all matter” and “infinitely dense,” are contradictory. “All matter” implies that there is a quantifiable amount of matter in the Universe, while “infinitely dense” implies that the amount of matter cannot be enumerated. If matter is quantifiable, then the spatial volume that contains that matter must also be quantifiable, and therefore, its density has a finite value. So, as one should expect, cosmologists do not technically define the ylem as infinite in density, but rather, justreally, really dense. The initial cosmic singularity is thought to have been 1014 times the density of water, yet smaller in volume than a single proton. Rick Gore, writing in National Geographic, said, “Astonishingly, scientists now calculate that everything in this vast universe grew out of a region many billions of times smaller than a single proton, one of the atom’s basic particles” (Gore, 1983, 163:705). Karen Fox, physics and astrophysics science writer, said the ylem was a “mind-bogglingly dense atom containing the entire Universe” (Fox, p. 69). So, the singularity is thought to be of a specific size and density—not infinitesimal or infinite, respectively. So, the “cosmic egg” is really not thought to be infinitely dense. Big Bang cosmologists loosely use the term “infinitely” as an approximation for “really, really dense.” Now, don’t miss the ultimate point. In theory, in order for time to completely stop,infinite gravitational acceleration would be necessary, but the hypothetical ylem does not provide that. Thus, time would tick on, albeit, theoretically very slowly. Bottom line: Stephen Hawking’s contention that time did not exist before the Big Bang is without merit—even if the Big Bang were true or even possible, which it is not.
A second problem with Hawking’s statement is that he strongly acknowledges the immutability of the laws of nature, as will be discussed further. These laws, according to Hawking, cannot be violated. They are fixed. The Law of Cause and Effect is no exception. And yet, Hawking contradicts himself by claiming that it was, in fact, violated at the beginning. He has no empirical evidence to substantiate such a claim. Instead, we are to take him at his word, although he claims that science, which is based on empirical evidence, can explain everything. If he, being a scientist intent on finding all of the origin answers without the need of the supernatural, is intent on basing his decisions on only the scientific evidence, then he must find empirical evidence that proves that the Law of Cause and Effect—a law of nature, which he says is immutable and fixed—has ever been violated. Until such evidence can be found, he is unjustified in theorizing such a violation. There is no such evidence—only his conjecture. According to the Law of Rationality, Hawking is guilty of being irrational since he has drawn conclusions that are not warranted by the evidence. To hold to that view is, therefore, illogical and unscientific. By definition, he has abandoned his premise. Science and its natural laws cannot explain the Universe without a Supernatural Creator, because the laws of nature are not in harmony with any theories that require a purely naturalistic origin.
Third, Hawking believes that the Creator would have to exist prior to the Big Bang, assumedly because of his interpretation of the Law of Cause and Effect. He believes that if the Big Bang is true, then time would not have existed before the Big Bang because of Einstein’s findings, and therefore, there could be no prior existence of a Creator and, therefore, no cause. We have already examined the false idea that time would have ceased to exist in the hypothetical “ylem.” However, even granting him his assertion that time could not have existed before the Big Bang, he is incorrect in claiming that the Law of Cause and Effect would prohibit the existence of a Creator. Such a contention illustrates Hawking’s ignorance concerning the true nature of the Law of Causality.
Even if the Big Bang were true (which it is not), the work of a Creator would not be in violation of the Law. First of all, the Law of Causality as a law of natural science only applies to that which can be empirically observed—namely, the natural Universe, not supernatural entities. So, it does not even apply to God. Second, even if it did apply to the Creator, Hawking’s belief that there’s no room for the Creator since the Law of Causality requires a previous cause—which could not be if time did not exist before the Big Bang—is erroneous. The Law of Cause and Effect (or Law of Causality) states that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause (see Miller, 2011a). When one sits in a seat, his legs form a lap. The cause of the lap is sitting, which occurs simultaneously with the creation of the lap. So, causes can take place simultaneously with their effects. A proper understanding of the Law of Causality reveals that the Law does not rule out the existence of a Creator even if the Big Bang were true, since the effect of the Universe could occur simultaneous with its causal activity. Again, though Hawking is inaccurate in his use of the Law of Causality, it is ultimately irrelevant since the Big Bang is unscientific and logically impossible.
A fourth problem with his statement is that a black hole is still something—not nothing. In order for time to theoretically not exist in a black hole, there has to be a black hole to start with. The question remains: where did the black hole come from? The Law of Cause and Effect cannot be dodged. A cause is always necessary in nature.
A fifth problem is that Hawking incorrectly assumes that spiritual entities are even bound by time as we know it. The nature of the Creator is such that He is omnipresent (cf. Exodus 3:14; John 8:58; Psalm 90:2,4; Psalm 139:7-8; 2 Peter 3:8; Hebrews 13:8). He is simultaneously everywhere and everywhen. Time is irrelevant to God. The temporal existence we reside in—one in which black holes may exist—came into being a few thousand years ago when God created it. However, He existed long before time came into being. Stephen Hawking betrays his ignorance of true theism by such assertions. Truly, the episode makes it clear that Hawking’s entire perspective on theism has been formed by various false religions—not by true Bible theism.

The Immutable Laws of Nature

Throughout the episode, Hawking ironically comes out strongly in support of the immutability of the laws of nature. He says,
[T]he Universe is a machine governed by principles or laws—laws that can be understood by the human mind. I believe that the discovery of these laws has been humankind’s greatest achievement…. But what’s really important is that these physical laws, as well as being unchangeable, are universal. They apply not just to the flight of the ball, but to the motion of a planet and everything else in the Universe. Unlike laws made by humans, the laws of nature cannot ever be broken. That’s why they are so powerful (“Curiosity…,” emp. added).
The implications of the immutable laws of nature have long been a strong contention of creation scientists in support of theism. Sadly, though Hawking acknowledges the immutability of the laws of nature, he does not allow his brilliant mind to follow the implications of such strong statements in support of the laws of nature. The laws of nature—specifically the Laws of Thermodynamics (see Miller, 2007), Law of Biogenesis (see Thompson, 2002), Law of Causality (see Miller, 2011a), Laws of Probability (see Miller, 2011b), and Laws of Genetics (see Thompson, 2002)—point unequivocally to the existence of a Supreme Being. With the exception of the Law of Causality, Hawking leaves these laws untouched in his lecture. How presumptuous to assert that science has answered all of life’s questions without the need of God, while not even addressing many of the arguments that theists have used through the millennia to highlight the need of a Supreme Being in the origins equation.
Hawking goes on to say, “If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn’t take long to ask what role is there for God” (“Curiosity…,” emp. added). Quite a presumptuous statement to make, to be sure. There are hundreds of creation scientists, myself included, who have come to the exact opposite conclusion. The laws of nature attest to the existence of God. A list of just 186 of those credentialed scientists has been posted on-line by Creation Ministries International (cf. “Creation Scientists…,” 2010; Miller, 2010).
Ironically, though Hawking claims that science can explain our existence without the need of a Creator, in the show he actually acknowledged a significant problem with that claim which is inherent in the laws of nature for which science still cannot even attempt an answer. He said, “Did God create the quantum laws that allowed the Big Bang to occur? In a nutshell, did we need a god to set it all up so that the Big Bang could bang?” (“Curiosity…”). He, of course, made it clear that he did not believe that to be the case. However, he did not even attempt to offer an alternative option, much less any proof for his assertion. He moved on to discuss other matters, never to return to that question. Though he believes science has eliminated the need for a Creator, he simply did not address one of the most powerful proofs that attest to the need of a Supreme Being to explain what we see in nature.
How can there be law without a lawgiver? The eminent atheistic, theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and astrobiologist of Arizona State University, Paul Davies, noted that very thing in the “round table discussion” on the Discovery Channel following “Curiosity,” titled, “The Creation Question: a Curiosity Conversation.” Concerning Hawking, Davies said, “In the show, Stephen Hawking gets very, very close to saying, ‘Well, where did the laws of physics come from? That’s where we might find some sort of God.’ And then he backs away and doesn’t return to the subject” (2011). In response, concerning the laws of science, Davies further said, “You need to know where those laws come from. That’s where the mystery lies—the laws…. I think the key point here is that these very laws that we’re talking about…are simply, for most scientists, unexplained. So, either you have an unexplained God or you have unexplained laws” (“The Creation Question…”). Davies, at least,  is partially correct. The laws of nature are unexplained without God. The question is, who among the atheists are willing to drop all preconceived notions and bias and accept where the scientific evidence points? The answer to that question highlights the fact that most atheists, as well as most people on the entire planet, simply are not interested in the truth—no matter how much they claim that they are. Could it be that most people want to do what they want to do, without having to have a guilty conscience due to disobeying authority—especially the Ultimate Authority?

Unintentional Concessions in Favor of Theism

Though he certainly would not embrace several implications that follow from his statements, in this episode Hawking ultimately concedes the main thrust of at least three of the classical arguments for the existence of God. First of all, he acknowledges the “complexity and variety of the Universe” (“Curiosity…”), which creationists have long contended is evidence of a Designer. An explosion is not capable of the complexity and variety in the Universe. Intelligent design is necessary. Further, he makes the statement,
I believe that the discovery of these laws has been human kind’s greatest achievement. For it’s these laws of nature, as we now call them, that will tell us whether we need a god to explain the Universe at all…. Did God create the quantum laws that allowed the Big Bang to occur? In a nutshell, did we need a god to set it all up so that the Big Bang could bang (“Curiosity…”)?
So, he concedes the need for a law writer, but offers no explanation—other than “a god.” Therefore, by his lack of an alternate explanation, he concedes that there is no other. So, he tacitly concedes the validity of the Teleological Argument for the existence of God. There is evidence of design in the Universe, especially in the design of the laws of nature. Therefore, there must be a Designer—a law Writer.
Early on in the episode, Hawking states, “For centuries it was believed that disabled people, like me, were living under a curse inflicted by God” (“Curiosity…”). He is correct that many people throughout time have incorrectly believed that suffering and misfortune are necessarily a result of displeasing God or a god (consider Job’s friends, who were ultimately proven wrong in their contention). However, by this statement, Hawking acknowledges that the world, “for centuries,” has largely embraced some form of theism—believing in a god of some sort. This admission is the thrust of the Intuitional Argument for the existence of God. Humans have a religious inclination—a tendency to be religious and worship something. We may suppress it or ignore it, but it is there and has historically been so. People have always worshipped something. In fact, though he used the past tense “believed,” as though it is not the case anymore, human inclination to believe in Something and be religious is clearly still in our nature. In fact, according to Adherents.com92% of the world believein some form of theism (“Major Religions of the World…,” 2005). Our intuition tells us to be religious, and neither evolution nor a random explosion can account for that religious inclination. After this statement, Hawking went on to say, “I prefer to think that everything can be explained another way: by the laws of nature” (“Curiosity…”). As you will recall, he then attempted to prove that statement, and his explanation was shown above to be inadequate, logically and scientifically, in accounting for the existence of the Universe. So, we are left with his stated alternative. Belief in God is the logical choice. Human intuition to be religious still stands as the sensible viewpoint. No adequate explanation exists for our religious tendency without the existence of a Creator.
Recall also that Hawking stated the following:
So where did all this energy and space come from? How does an entire Universe full of energy—the awesome vastness of space and everything in it—simply appear out of nothing? For some, this is where God comes back into the picture. It was God that created the energy and space. The Big Bang was the moment of creation (“Curiosity…”).
This is the thrust of the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God. The Universe (i.e., the cosmos) is here and a Cause is needed. Hawking tacitly acknowledges that a Creator is needed in the equation if there is not an adequate explanation for the Universe without Him. He believes that science and nature provide that explanation, but again, that explanation has been shown to be scientifically unfeasable. So, again, the alternative that he raises—the existence of God—is still the best option for explaining the existence of the Universe. The Cosmological Argument stands unscathed as a testament to the existence of the Creator. The cosmos is here. Who made it?

CONCLUSION

In the end, Hawking’s assertions are just that—assertions. Before his claim that the power of science can eliminate the need for a Creator has validity, Hawking has a lot of answering to do. The truth is, science cannot explain our existence without a Creator. Quite the opposite is true. Science proclaims the Creator. “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork” (Psalm 19:1, emp. added). “For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they arewithout excuse…. Professing to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:20,22, emp. added). “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables” (2 Timothy 4:3-4, emp. added). Stephen Hawking would do well to realize thatthere is a God in heaven, and according to Him, it is the fool that “has said in his heart, ‘There is no God,’” (Psalm 14:1), not the man who believes himself to be more enlightened because of his atheistic mindset. Sadly, “not many wise according to the flesh…are called” (1 Corinthians 1:26).
We close with another quote from Paul Davies concerning Hawking and his wild assertions in “Curiosity”: “I think science can get a bad press by scientists appearing to be too arrogant and taking on more than perhaps they should. So, it’s as well to lace definitive statements with a certain amount of humility, I think” (“The Creation Question…”). Someone had to say it. Perhaps Hawking will hear it since it came from a fellow atheistic cosmologist.

REFERENCES

“Appeal to Consequences” (2009), Logical Fallacies, http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-consequences/.
“Creation Scientists and Other Specialists of Interest” (2010), Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/creation-scientists.
“The Creation Question: A Curiosity Conversation” (2011), Discovery Channel, August 7.
“Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” (2011), Discovery Channel, August 7.
Fox, Karen (2002), The Big Bang Theory—What It Is, Where It Came from, and Why It Works (New York: John Wiley & Sons).
Gardner, Martin (2000), Did Adam and Eve Have Navels? (New York: W.W. Norton).
Gore, Rick (1983), “The Once and Future Universe,” National Geographic, 163[6]:704-748, June.
Guth, Alan (1997), The Inflationary Universe (New York: Perseus Books).
Jastrow, Robert (1977), Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton).
“Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents” (2005), http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html.
Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/2106.
Miller, Jeff (2010), “You Creationists Are Unqualified To Discuss Such Matters!” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/3730.
Miller, Jeff (2011a), “God and the Laws of Science: The Law of Causality,” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/3716.
Miller, Jeff (2011b), “God and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Probability,” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/3726.
Muir, Hazel (2002), “Death Star,” New Scientist, 173[2326]:26, January 19.
“New Theories Dispute the Existence of Black Holes” (2002), http://www. cosmiverse.com/space01170204.html.
“Straw Man Fallacy” (2009), Logical Fallacies, http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ambiguity/straw-man/.
Thompson, Bert (2002), The Scientific Case for Creation (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Tryon, E.P. (1973), “Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation?,” Nature, 246:396-397, December 14.
Vilenkin, Alex (2006), Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes (New York: Hill and Wang).
Yam, Philip (1997), “Exploiting Zero-Point Energy,” Scientific American, 277[6]:82-85.