Home » Intelligent Design » Hawking’s Unobtainium

Hawking’s Unobtainium

Avatar

Recently Stephen Hawking finished a video series with the Discovery Channel which, in his paralyzed state, took him 3 years to finish. According to the news releases, he insisted on rewriting large sections of the script. One wonders how long it took a man who communicates to his computer through eye-blinks to write a new script. But however long it took, we are now blessed with yet another “science for the common man” video.

My college-aged children all have a “Great American Video” waiting for them to make. When I was in school, everyone wanted to be the “Great American Garage Band”. And as far as I can tell, the previous generation all had a “Great American Novel” that was going to make them the next J. D. Salinger.  So perhaps Stephen Hawking is merely reflecting the current age, after writing the surprise best-seller “”, he now wants to finish with a video. Will it be a best seller? I’m not sure, but it certainly is even more speculative than his book, if not downright sci-fi.  Which is not to denigrate the truly innovative “brain-storming” that makes a good sci-fi book work, such as Arthur C. Clarke‘s invention of “geostationary” satellites, or Star Trek’s invention of the telescoping sliding door. But what makes for good sci-fi rarely makes for good science, namely, selling copies of your video. Avatar not only broke the record for theater sales, but apparently has broken the record for DVD sales as well, but clearly not because of the “science” in the movie. Because the science of unobtainium, is, well, unobtainable.

In the same way, Hawking brings up several “unobtainium” solutions in his video, which are rooted deeply in his materialist metaphysics, his atheist religion.

read more….

p>

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

13 Responses to Hawking’s Unobtainium

  1. So is Hawking’s vision one of humans as Babylonian conquerors of the universe? I don’t want to see humanity turn into something like that. I’d rather see something like Star Trek where there is a peaceful alliance of worlds.

  2. I for one would rather see us feed the poor and take care of people suffering here on our planet before venturing out to play conquerors of the universe…

  3. Good point.

  4. In a world where juries excuse the inexcusable, where psychologists explain away the most inexplicable evils, people are groping for a kind of realism that they find, ironically, in fiction.

    C. Colson

  5. A comment about niwrads post (comments are off there so Im doing it here)…

    He seems to be saying (amongst all the word-salad) that the intelligent designer has to be God.
    Doesnt this run counter to the whole point of ID: that the identity of the designer is off-limits ?

  6. 6
    William J. Murray

    The “whole point” of ID the science is identifying cases of intelligent design in order to begin examining the phenomena in question under a better, more fruitful heuristic. It has nothing to say about god per se one way or another.

    So, the “whole point” of ID is not that the identity of the designer is “off-limits”. That’s only the “whole point” of ID for those that believe ID is some kind of creationist trojan horse.

  7. Graham 1 (niwrad’s comments apper to be closed, but if you make the effort, you can post).

    —”He (niwrad appears to be saying (amongst all the word-salad) that the intelligent designer has to be God. Doesnt this run counter to the whole point of ID: that the identity of the designer is off-limits?”

    niwrad was explaining metaphysics; ID is science.

  8. To StephenB: The message Im getting is: “Comments are closed.” (thats an actual cut-paste). Perhaps they are only closed to non-believers, because they are obviously not closed to bornagain77 etc.

    In any case, Im bemused by the apparant non-concern displayed there. We are told over and over and over that the identity of the designer is (a) NOT God (b) Not necessarily God and (c) Not the concern of ID.

    This seems to have been forgotten in the flood of theology pouring out over there.

    So, is it now settled, is the designer God ?

  9. Graham1:

    “Perhaps they are only closed to non-believers”

    Well Graham,,, I am a non-believer!!!!

    I have 100% non-belief that my great great great grandpappy was a mud puddle!!!!

    That makes me a downright blasphemous heretic in many Ivy League schools!

  10. There appears to be little interest in the implications of niwrads post. Much theological discussion but little apparant concern at the implications. Apparantly if Judge Jones declares ID to be religious the world is about to end, but when niwrad declares the designer to be God, its all OK.

  11. —Graham 1: “So, is it now settled, is the designer God?”

    For Classic theology, which follows the philosophies of Augustine and Aquinas, the creator of the universe is, indeed, God.

    For ID, which measures the effects of design, the designer identity cannot be ascertained by studying those effects any more than a burglar can be identified by studying the effects of a ransacked house.

    I know I am wasting my time explaining this to you, but there are lurkers which sufficient intellectual curiousity who might be confused by your confusion.

  12. To StephenB:

    Its my understanding that niwrad claims that the designer is God. Is that what he is saying or not ? Its hard to tell from all the theology/metaphysics but that seems to be the gist of it.

    If so, then this is painfully at odds with the repeated (and obviously frustated) claim by Dembski et al that we cannot/do not identify the designer.

    So, which is it: Can we now identify the designer or not ?

    Yours,
    Intellectually curious.

  13. To StephenB: To save you any further pain, I think I see whats going on. God created the universe, but he didnt (necessarily) create life.

    How am I going ?

Leave a Reply