The Cosmic Cook Book: The Ingredients to make a universe.
Hawking says that it is a simple thing to make the universe!? (Umm… just how many universes has Hawking made???! Uhh, None! So, how does he know that it is a “simple thing” to make a universe Anyway?) Be that as it may, he states, “All it takes is just three things: Matter, Energy and Space”! Where did matter and energy come from? The interesting answer given was, “We have had no idea until the 20th Century. Then Albert Einstein came up with the idea about matter and energy. He said matter and energy are the same and interchangeable.” Hence, he made the formula, E= MC2

The admission that science “had no idea” of where all the matter involving the Big Bang theory came from is very telling to me. Because, according to articles written about the Big Bang, “they” knew all the answers. Now they admit that their answers were hanging on the “had no idea” premise! How do we know that what “they” are saying now is absolute truth? Here in is a problem; this program presents the idea of the Big Bang as an absolute fact. Is it? Not according to many “other” scientists studying cosmology (see below).

This still sparks the questions: Where did space and energy come? The answer: “From the Big bang!” Where did that come from? Some answer: “God did it.” Then the question is asked, “But did He?” To which Hawking states, “But science has a different answer.” (It should be, “Scientists have a different answer”; science can not answer anything.)

How did it arise out of nothing? The only answers are either from the Creator, or spontaneously on its own accord. According to Hawking, it came about due to Negative energy! And an illustration is given of a man making a hill (the positive) while at the same time he is also making a hole (the negative). When the hill is complete the matter in the hill (the positive) equals the matter taken out forming the hole (the negative). This is what happened at the Big Bang. Huh??? Where did the “energy” come from in the first place? The faulty parts of the illustration are (1) that there was “energy” already there at the start (where did that come from?); and (2) the “energy” coming out of the hole was the same “energy” making the hill, yet it is supposed to be negative energy, which is the opposite of positive energy.

The positive and negative equals Zero
The question is asked, “Where did all the ‘negative’ energy go?” We are told that it is all throughout the Universe. Space is full of negative energy. Based on what evidence? (None given) This negative energy is what offsets the positive energy to always equal zero. The idea that negative energy is spread throughout universe and since it adds up to zero, this somehow means, according to the convoluted way Hawking thinks, “You don’t need God” Yet, the following questions still loom like a Damocles Sword:

“Who or What triggered the event that resulted in the Big Bang?” And, “How does something come from nothing?”

Again according to the way Hawking thinks, this is answered by quantum physics where sub-atomic level protons seem to appear out of nothing, remain for a while, then disappear. To him, “This means that the universe could simply ‘pop’ into existence from nothing.” Hawking goes on, “I think science has a more compelling explanation than a divine creator” The key here is that just because one can conjure up a “compelling explanation” does not automatically make that explanation the Truth.

For one thing, this idea raises the questions: “Do the protons appear from some previous location then return to it”; or, “Do they spontaneously create themselves from nothing and then vanish back into nothing.” It is the premise of the second question, that protons spontaneously create themselves from nothing; then return to nothing, which violates the physical law of conservation of matter and energy. This law centers on the fact that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Therefore, the idea that these protons appear from a preexisting place in time then move back to it fits the law of conservation of energy, whereas, the idea that they are spontaneously created then destroyed contradicts that law! So, from this aspect of the first law of thermodynamics, the Universe could NOT “just ‘pop’ into existence” from nowhere!

Time and the Big Bang
Time began at the Big Bang. Once outside of the event horizon of the pre-big bang black hole, time began as part of the continuum. This is the unstated premise of this section of the show. It goes on to build the case against time because according to the theory a black hole kills time.

According to generally accepted science, it is theorized that a clock/time would slow down as it gets closer to a black hole. Then once inside the black hole, the clock/time would stop altogether. This is due to the forces at work within the black hole that causes time not to exist. Therefore, as we would go back in time towards the Big Bang the Universe would get smaller and smaller until it is a small black hole the size of a period at the end of a sentence.

Problem: according to the physics, the gravitational field in a black hole is SO strong that nothing, including light can escape. Therefore, for the black hole to all of a sudden expand at the Big Bang, Something very Powerful had to alter the physical laws operating in the black hole to cause it to expand into a creative force rather than continuing to contract.

Now with the premise that time would cease altogether in the “pre-bang,” black hole, Hawking states that since “time did not exist before the big bang, there was no place for a creator!  There is no time in which god could create. Therefore, there is no god, No after life, no heaven.” (Hence, there would be no Hell, as well). Umm, I guess when your mind is bent around quantum physics; it is natural to make quantum leaps of judgment.

Final Analysis
But is this true? There was no time before the Big Bang; therefore, God did not exist before the big bang? (See my article below,”The Point of Eternal Timelessness”)

The answer is, “NO!” All the premise does is show forth Hawking’s total ignorance concerning the Creator God of the Judeo/Christian Scriptures. This Creator God has revealed the fact that He is the Self Existent One, Who existed before all things (Colossians 1:17); and the Father of Time! (Isaiah 9:6). Hawking is right about one thing: Time is part of the Space-matter-continuum, therefore, part of God’s Creation, when He spoke time-space-matter into existence. The key is the Creator exists outside of time -space – and matter. Before matter, energy, and space were; God, the Creator IS – He is the Great I AM.

Epilogue
The program was very psychologically programmed through the use of “wow” level computer graphics to help put the viewer into the “Wow” mode of thought. It was like a lawyer “leading” a witness during a trial. The glaring issue was the fallacy of begging the question: They argued from the position that the Big Bang is a proven fact; when in reality it is not. There are many scientists[1] (secular particularly) that have compelling evidence against the idea of a big bang; so it is not a settled “fact” any more than evolutionism is. George Ellis is quoted in an article by W.W Gibbs, entitled, “Profile: Geroge F.R. Ellis” published in the October 1995 edition of Scientific American, as stating:

“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”[2]

So the idea of the Big Bang and Hawking’s argument against God as Creator remain in the realm of man’s fanciful ideas that although they are imaginative, fall far short of what is true.

Again I must emphasize that the questions: “Where did we come from? Is there life after death? Is there a heaven and a hell? Are all questions whose answers reside outside the realm of human experience and observation! Therefore, any answers that are legitimate must come from Special Revelation of One Who posses all knowledge. He has provided these answers in His Revelation, the Judeo/Christian Scriptures.

______________

** This message from the Pope seems to be a focal point of Hawking. He writes about it in his book, A Brief History of Time,  where on page 120 he states that the cosmology convention took place in 1981; then according to his students, he reiterates it again in his “Hong Kong Lectures” in 2006 stating that the convention took place in 1985, which is the date given on this program.  Problem is, neither addresses by the Pope, John Paul II, and transcribed, (both in 1981 and 1985) give such an explicit warning.

[1] Other secular scientists who do not hold to the Big Bang include Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvén, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and the British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who is accredited with first coining the term “the Big Bang” in the early 1950′s.

[2] W. Wayt Gibbs, “Profile: George F. R. Ellis,” Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55.

What is of interest here for this article is Hawking’s answer to a question asked in an e-mail interview by USA Today’s writer, Dan Vergano who asked:

Vergano: “First, we wonder if you could comment on why you are tackling the existence of God question?”

Hawking:  “I think Science can explain the Universe without the need for God.”

This answer is very interesting to consider by any thinking person.  The first thing noticed is the subjective context of the answer by Hawking’s use of the first personal pronoun, “I”.   This immediately puts it in the realm of one man’s opinion.  Next is the word, “think” to which all are entitled to think whatever they like, however, individual thoughts are subjective in nature.  His use of the term science with a capital “S” I find curious, Is he deifying this idea?  Is Science his “god?” It seems so since he replaces God’s revealed explanation for the creation of the Universe for “Science’s” imagined explanation.  He follows this with a logical fallacy called reification by using the terms “can explain”.  In reality, science is science it cannot say or explain anything, only people can explain things and they do so based on the biases of their worldview.   He ends his statement with the words, “without the need for God.”  The point being that in Hawking’s fallen, depraved, finite mind, scientific thinking can come up with explanations for the existence/creation of the Universe without invoking God as the Prime Creator.   Big deal, I would be surprised if he or any other human being couldn’t imagine how the universe “could” come into existence even without God.  I can imagine how my coffee cup came into existence without a cup maker, whoopee!  Just because I in my limited knowledge can imagine how something came to be does not make it true, even if I use logic and interpret “evidence” accordingly does not in reality make my coffee cup exempt from its maker!  Nor does Hawking’s explanation make the creation of the Universe exempt from its Creator, along with anyone else’s fanciful notion for that matter.

Here is the point to ponder:  Just because one can conjure up an explanation for “something” does not make the explanation true.  Even if the explanation uses observed scientific facts interpreted to fit the premise, it does not make the explanation true.  Just because the argument is cogent in all its points, does not make the explanation true.  Just because 10,000+ so-called scientists agree on the explanation does not make it true.   So just because “science”(capitalized or not), can come up with a sophisticated explanation for the existence/creation of the Universe does not make that explanation true and never will!

The thinking person realizes that answers to such questions as, “Where we came from?”  “Why are we here?”  “Where are we headed?” “Is there life after death?”  cannot be answered by fallen, finite man.  Because man is finite and only posses an infinitesimal amount of ALL  the knowledge that actually exists in the Universe, the answers to these questions fall outside man’s ability to answer with Truth.  This is because the possession of ALL Knowledge is required to correctly answer these questions.  Therefore these questions can only be answered by Special Revelation from One Who is the Possessor of ALL KNOWLEDGE, and we find that Special Revelation in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures called the Bible that says, “In the beginning GOD created the Heavens and the Earth.”

1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have han­dled, of the Word of life

FACTS are what guide our lives. Facts are what we stand upon and believe. As Calvin aptly states: “Believing is not some easy supposition or a mere assent to what is said, but embracing something with a firm undoubting conviction, so that we dare to subscribe to the truth as definite.” Vivid facts are what change our lives. the facts that the Apostle’s experienced with the historical Jesus of Nazareth were vivid facts that changed their lives completely.   These vivid facts were “Shatter-Points” in their walk and understanding with the Personal God.  Shatter-Points, such as the stilling of the waves and wind; the feeding of the 4,000 and 5,000; the raising of Lazareth, and the greatest — the death, burial, and physical ressurection of Jesus, and finally the ascension of Jesus into heaven, to name just a few, all caused a vital change in thinking and life of all the desciples of Jesus, and what they passed on to us does have the same effect.

Point to Ponder: Do you believe that Jesus of Nazareth is Fact, is real? “What think ye of Christ?” is the question that determines your destiny. Do you know that He is historically real? Moreover, He did what he came to do? In addition, do you understand that His Life and Work was to be salvation to all who believe? If you believe that Jesus is Real, and have received Him as Savior, does your way of life show forth that reality? Is your life characterized by repentance? Repentance is the first response to the Gospel and continues though out the believer’s life. Belief is made up of two facets: repentance/faith. Belief is changing your thinking or actions (repentance) by taking God at His Word (faith).

What It Is:

A model is a mental or physical construct of something being considered as to its feasibility; in this case either the position of Creation or the position of Evolution.  Models are developed to show relationships between observed evidence and the predictions and expectations inferred by the model. A model can be made up of a set of premises that define an overall scientific point of view. However as one scientist cautions,

“Model building is not science because it goes beyond the limits of science, but it can be very valuable in making science . . . useful.  Model building is not wrong in itself; it is wrong, however, to make model building a way of ‘establishing truth’ as evolutionist do . . . it is important to recall that any explanation is merely man’s guess at how God ordained something to operate.”[1]

What It Does:

A model helps to organize and understand data in a given framework.  It helps to explain how the data could work within the bigger picture of the modular construct. Also from the construct of the model’s stated premises, predictions can be made as to what one would expect to find in the evidence. The scientist makes predictions based on the logical expectations from the model’s premises. If the observed evidence runs counter to the predicted expectations from the model’s premises; then the premises either need to be revised or the model must be reconstructed to accommodate the preponderance of the data. 

What It Cannot Do

As far as the creation/evolution issue is concerned, Paul Taylor notes,

“We just need to remember that we cannot prove with absolute certainty that the model is how things actually happened.  We need to be aware of the differences between operational science and origins science.  Operational science is the result of experimental data or observations taken in the present, subject to peer review and capable of repetition. Origins science is an extrapolation of presently observed phenomena into the past, in a manner which is not repeatable. When evolutionists are criticized for the latter, it is not because the principle of origins science is wrong but because such a model cannot be accepted as a proven fact. So it is with creationist’s models.”[2]

Models can help us postulate reasonable, scientific answers for objections to what we believe on a Scriptural basis.  As a believer, we must realize that the Scriptural principles and truth behind the Creation/Biblical model are absolute.  Therefore the reasoned scientific inferences contained within the Biblical model must not conflict with Scriptural Truth.  A model cannot establish absolutes for it is evidence dependent.  New evidence should either confirm or falsify aspects of the model, and the model is to be adjusted accordingly.  The weakness of any model is the lack of evidence.  As Taylor goes on to assert: “Scientific models, while helpful, must never take the place of Scripture. The scientific model can be superseded. Scripture cannot.”[3]

We can reflect on this thought:  many times it is not what the evidence appears to show; but what evidence is missing. While the evidence may appear to be pointing to a specific conclusion; the reality may be that the evidence is incomplete. What needs to be understood here is this: the actual amount of knowledge man has at his disposal is but an infinitesimal pittance of the totality of knowledge that actually exists.  Only the Omniscient Creator God of the Bible encompasses this total knowledge; for man to think that he has anyway arrived in this area is to commit the ultimate blasphemy because he is claiming to be what God is – all knowing and therefore god, himself.  Consequently since man is not omniscient, he has no basis to pontificate on how things came to be. When he does pontificate all his conjectures about the origin of things apart from the Bible, no matter how “unified people are in saying it and agreeing with it,” it will be completely wrong. This comes to light with the problems encountered between real science and the premises of evolutionism.

Conclusion

What we note is that there is a difference between operations science and historical science.  Operations science deals with experiments and problems that can be dealt with in the present.  Historical science on the other hand deals with events and artifacts that took place or were made in the unobservable past.  Since no one was there to actually observe the first molecules forming or the first amphibian to crawl out on land, what is postulated about this scenario is and remains conjecture and assumption that cannot be proven.  Darwin assumed evolution happened to “prove” evolution happened. Therefore, if the assumption of evolution is what drives one’s thinking then that assumption becomes one’s worldview.  This means that whatever evidence is “uncovered” will be interpreted to fit that worldview.  This is also true of the Creationist.  He or she will interpret the same evidence in accordance with his or her Biblical worldview. The only difference is that the Biblical worldview is based on eye-witness testimony of the One Who was there and did what He claims to have done.  The Biblical creationist builds his worldview on the revealed and stated history in God’s Word, the Bible, and interprets the uncovered evidence accordingly.

First,  Scripture states that there was shared Glory among the Persons of the Godhead, as Jesus notes in His prayer to His Father,   “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” John 17:5.  There was and is an equally shared glory, which is characteristic of  each member of the  tri-unity of the Creator.

Secondly, There is shared emotion among the Persons of the Godhead as Jesus notes further in His prayer, “ Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.” John 17:24.   

Thirdly, the realm of communication took place among the Persons of the Godhead during this state of eternity prior to creation. Under Divine inspiration the Apostle Paul writes to Titus that the gift of eternal life was a promise that was declared before the creation of anything, note Titus 1:2: “In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began.” To make a promise involves a conceptual, verbal  communication between intelligent beings. Communication involves personality, which expresses, intellect (formulation of an idea), volition (execution of an idea), emotion (being pleased with an idea). This shows that these elements of Personality were all present and expressed during this timeless spiritual state prior to anything material. Therefore, being, intellect, and communication, existed before any material object was created; also it shows that they stand apart from matter; being, intellect, and communication are something that has to be imposed upon matter if matter exhibits any of these traits. If matter displays information (such as DNA) that information must be imposed upon it from an outside, Intelligent Source.  If a living thing exhibits the traits of “being” then those traits must have been imposed into that living thing, i.e. man (human being) from an outside Source of Being; being, intellect, and communication do not come from nothing, nor are they the “natural” products of evolutionary processes.– ajd