The God Particle....something from NOTHING....?
with nothing . . . absolutely nothing. No air. No matter . . . not
even an atom. No energy. No space. No thought. No time. Just a long dead
silence. This is the evolutionist’s reality before the dawn of
something becoming everything. At some infinitesimal moment in time all
the stuff that makes up our world came into being. Like the Millennium
Falcon coming out of light speed, the cosmos appeared. Once there was
nothing, now there is everything.
Even the discovery of the Higgs
boson “God Particle” can’t save the evolutionary theorists since it’s
something rather than nothing. How did the Particle get here? Why does
it act the way it does? Why did scientists believe that it existed even
though they never observed its existence?
In 2010, the darling of
everything materialistic, Stephen W. Hawking, argued that the laws of
physics allow for the universe to have created itself . . . from
nothing. In his book, The Grand Design, Hawking states:
there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself
from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something
rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”
is science? Where are the experiments to back up the claims he
attributes to physics? The first thing a budding scientist learns is
that spontaneous generation does not happen. Louis Pasteur and Francesco
Redi’s experiments disproved the theory some time ago.
theorizing. But because he is a noted scientist whose speculations fit
what atheists want and need to believe in order to make their
theoretical worldview work, some people are willing to believe him.
“Stephen Hawking said it; I believe him; that settles it.”
religious component to atheism is evident when listening to
the high priests of the system. For example, Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion) and Steven Pinker (The Better Angels of Our Nature)
who were asked to respond to the argument that evolutionary scientists
do not allow outside criticism of the evolutionary worldview. How can
evolutionists do this when science is a discipline of open inquiry?
Stanley Fish observed something remarkable in the way Dawkins explained how scientists do science:
we accept the conclusions of scientific investigation we necessarily do
so on trust (how many of us have done or could replicate the
experiments?) and are thus not so different from religious believers,
Dawkins and Pinker asserted that the trust we place in scientific
researchers, as opposed to religious pronouncements, has been earned by
their record of achievement and by the public rigor of their procedures.
In short, our trust is justified, theirs is blind.
was at this point that Dawkins said something amazing, although neither
he nor anyone else picked up on it. He said: in the arena of science
you can invoke Professor So-and-So’s study published in 2008, “you can
actually cite chapter and verse.” ((Stanley Fish, “Citing Chapter and
Verse: Which Scripture Is the Right One?, The New York Times (March 26, 2012). ))
An odd choice of words: “chapter and verse.” Scientism is a religion with its own inspired books (“studies” by scientists).
doesn’t matter if there isn’t any empirical science behind anything
Hawking says on the subject, as long as they hear him say, via a voice
synthesizer designed and created by someone, “I think Science can
explain the Universe without the need for God.” Even some liberals
aren’t buying what Stephen is hocking:
saying this, Hawking doesn’t speak like a scientist: he speaks like a
(speculative) philosopher. . . . To say that [the universe created
itself] spontaneously is not an answer: it’s an excuse for an answer.
When Hawking says that the spontaneous self-creation of the universe
“out of nothing” is evidence that a creator was not involved, he is not
speaking as a scientist. He is not making a scientific statement. His
statement is pure theology — of the negative kind typical of atheists.
((Ervin Laszlo writing for the Huffington Post.))
yet, Hawking’s assertions are taken seriously as scientific fact while
someone who questions the theory of evolution — a process that has never
been observed — is made out to be anti-science.
See Votes by State
News & Politics