Exposing PseudoAstronomy

September 4, 2010

Stephen Hawking, God, and Design, and the Universe


I know I haven’t written for awhile, and unfortunately, you can expect more of the same sporadic posts probably for the next several months. I apologize. Just keep this in your RSS reader and you’ll get ’em when they come out. Blog’s not dead, just me. 🙂

Anyway, if you had to pick one topic this week that’s in the news other than politics, it would probably be Stephen Hawking and the conjecture that the universe does not need a god to have come about or be as it is. I know folks are probably tired about this, but I thought I would give a few brief observations, hopefully ones that aren’t actually in most news outlets.

My Thoughts

First, I agree. I do not think there’s any hard, scientific evidence that you need a god to create the universe or to have it turn out as it is. You’ll note I wrote “think,” not “believe.” This particular word choice is one that I’ll hopefully address in another short, future post.

Anyway, what really brought on this post was I was yet again listening to an episode of Coast to Coast AM where the host, George Noory, brought on a theologian to react. Only, in a very C2C twist, this particular theologian, Dr. Barry Downing, thinks that the Bible is the inspired word of space aliens who talked to Moses through maybe some sort of hologram of the burning bush.

Moving on … George stated effectively, “I don’t see how you can look at the universe and all that it contains and think that there wasn’t some sort of designer or planner or plan.”

That got me thinking: Well, what would a universe look like if it hadn’t been planned? How would we know? What would the difference(s) be?

I think what George and many people forget is that we have a sample size of 1. If you think the universe did not have a creator nor planner nor plan, then this is what it looks like without one and hence we don’t need one to explain it. If you believe that the universe did have a creator or planner or plan, then this is what it looks like with one and hence we do need one to explain it.

Very circular reasoning here. Perhaps an argument from ignorance, perhaps a tautology. Or begging the question / unstated major premise. So many logical fallacies to choose from!

Final Thoughts

I the end, I think this debate is a bit silly. I think the reactions of condemnation from world religious leaders was a “necessary” response to a statement by someone as famous as Stephen Hawking. And Hawking does have a book he’s trying to sell.

I think this is a fairly futile argument because neither side is going to be able to convince the other for the simple reasons I stated above: Those who believe this universe’s form could only arise from a guiding hand or noodly appendage are always going to cling to that design argument. Those who think this arises from random chance or underlying physical laws that we do not yet know will continue to think that.

But it does make for headlines and gives people something to talk about other than the latest Paris Hilton snafu.



  1. Can’t argue with it except to say that the religious types could latch on to the idea that such laws as gravity, etc. also needed a…lawgiver. Of course this argument will go round and round for a long time.

    It may interest some to read what happens when a UFO skeptic bumbles in over his head, as all do who try to take on the Meier case:


    FYI, Meier’s specific, astronomically related information is shown to trump “official discovery” often by decades. Not surprising since he got to see the various things first hand, himself. Talk amongst yourselves…

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 4, 2010 @ 12:00 pm | Reply

  2. Okay, while I have only ever once banned someone (due to language) and I do screen comments for language and content though let almost anything through, seriously Michael, why do you latch on to anything remotely related to UFOs or aliens now on my blog and post stuff about Meier. In this post, it’s a complete non sequitur.

    Comment by Stuart Robbins — September 4, 2010 @ 12:03 pm | Reply

  3. Oooops, let’s get those articles and press releases straight!


    Comment by Michael Horn — September 4, 2010 @ 12:04 pm | Reply

  4. Hold on, I just saw that you responded so give me a minute!

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 4, 2010 @ 12:05 pm | Reply

  5. Well it’s certainly related in the sense that Meier has published a significant amount of specific astronomical information up to decades before “official discovery”. And he and his friends fill in a number of things that Hawking is kind of on the verge of.

    So, you can vet that info for yourself. And, since much of mainstream science functions somewhat like the Church did in Galileo’s day, I figure that I’ll at least put the info out there just in case there really are any scientific types out there who might actually want to investigate if something outside of their knowledge, and paradigm, has actually been occurring.

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 4, 2010 @ 12:09 pm | Reply

  6. But Michael, this post has to do with whether the universe needs a god to exist. It is not related, really, to any actual field of study in astronomy, nor is it related at all in any way to UFOs (other than the mention of Downing).

    Comment by Stuart Robbins — September 4, 2010 @ 12:16 pm | Reply

  7. Yes Stuart, probably one of the main reasons that Meier has been targeted so many times is the information pertaining to the nature of the universe and that not only was no god necessary but that the gods of our past were all simply far more advanced space traveling human beings.

    Hmmm, I have a funny feeling that may not have helped the conversation. But look, if you want to remove my posts here, fair enough. I appreciate your points, truly.

    If you do want to discuss the merits of the Meier case, or if you post some irresistibly tempting UFO related topic, I’ll be glad to chime in. I would invite you of course to read the article where the skeptic tries to address the Meier case, etc.

    I’ll only add that certain things come around quite rarely in life and end up being the center of study for the multitudes long after the fact.

    Comment by Michael Horn — September 4, 2010 @ 12:30 pm | Reply

  8. Hi,

    What’s the big deal? So, Stephen Hawking “conjectures” the universe does not need a god to come about or be as it is. There is more than one way to express ignorance. The truth is that the human depends on statistical majorities to decide what truth is. Else why TV shows? This is to confuse the gullible and the children on truth is and what reality is. Reporting on phenomena in nature can be truthful even if it was on an illusion with no reality.

    Reality is what the phenomena is or was. One amazing boxed in collective conjecture of the human race is the concept of time. You and I and all the big minds have the whole physics of the universe based on the mother of all conjectures – the existence of “Time” as an entity. In the Universe we observe nothing is static. And this concept of Time is bunged in to the understanding of physics of the universe because it is very fabric of our existence.

    But that does not make Time an entity and a reality. We observe cyclic phenomena – the sun rises and it sets. Humans are born and the die and are born/ For the sake of our own convenience in relation to our own lives we devise clocks , be it a stick on the ground or a quartz or cesium clock or any other. All this does not qualify time per se to be considered an entity that can be measured. With this comes in the speed of light and light per se. An object radiates out energy never to return (so we can think) if it was a Big Bang and a creator. Well that is one way of expressing ignorance. Another way of expressing ignorance is equally scientific is to question what is the nature of space and so called void. Was that already created for light and stuff to travel in or does energy create space to move around. I think, it is high time that “scientists” stuck to reporting their observations truthfully and let their fellow humans find out the reality of God and or Gods to be mystery during their lifetimes. One surest way of finding but not being able to report is to die. And that I dont want to. If I did I wouldn’t like to come back to report and scare the wits out of Stephen Hawkings – He has done some good work. I hope he continues doing so.

    Comment by kedarnath — September 4, 2010 @ 3:19 pm | Reply

  9. You could change your interpretation of ‘God Created…..’ It may refer to, God “did something to the Earth” and we call him God. The question then becomes “what did God do to the Earth?” and not “how did he make all of this so quickly?”

    Comment by Steve — September 6, 2010 @ 6:09 am | Reply

  10. good day steve,

    one non dichotomous way of looking at all this is to have simple conviction, not mere belief that “I am not God” – (and that includes the greatest of humans ever born) go about discovering how God or Gods work. Just because I am a biochemist, or a physicist and know a few things (relatively speaking), it would be highly presumptious and pseudo science if I were to conjecture that a bug or a human works via biochemistry and physics and God or Gods dont or cannot and also that there is nothing sacred about science, knowledge or learning.

    The great catch is – if it is an infinite universe then then any thing and everything is possible statistically but if it is finite then God and Gods have limited powers not infinite powers. One way of achieving the “infinite like look” is when there is cycles of creation and dissolution of “organization” actually occurring. But these happen outside the cone of observation of observers. In his earlier works Stephen Hawkins ponders on this but gives up and moves on to Black holes, that are fascinating. Ind describing these Stephen ponders on the event horizons and the radiation of x rays that enables the black holes to become something observable and within the cone of observability. In fact, Stephen Hawking is contradicting himself now and talks of God. He wrote years back that at the event horizon all laws of physics (and everything) that we know breaks down. Things tha are outside the cone of observability or even beyond the conjecture capability of the human mind is in the realm of the God / Gods.

    Comment by kedarnath — September 6, 2010 @ 9:56 am | Reply

  11. Hi

    I was just pointing out that it may be a language problem being addressed here. If a child said ‘look what I have created’ (a pretentious child that is) you would not think “good grief s(he) has mastered the art of the manufacture of plasticine” you would assume the phrase ‘created’ meant a process that has been applied to the plasticine. The meaning of ‘created’ is culturally implied. The meaning of ‘God created the world’ may have been lost in translation. So everyone ends up arguing about fossils.

    Hawkins argues that the physical constants required to make this universe work are suspiciously ‘tuned’ which implies a designer, whereas the opposing arguement is that due to physical interactions everything settles down to these mutually required constants values and no God is required (a bit like a hand displacing exactly the right amount of water). So lets assume the latter until proved otherwise. But eliminating the requirement for a God does not eliminate the possibility of a God. This is where science will continue to fall short as lack of evidence is not evidence of absence (and therefore does not eliminate a belief)

    It may be that it is not outside the ‘cone of observability’ its is just that we don’t realise what we are looking at yet. The idea that we require more evidence is an ongoing plea but many people saw fossils before it dawned on someone what they were looking at.

    Comment by Steve — September 7, 2010 @ 3:39 am | Reply

  12. HI, thanks. Your explanation of Hawkins argument is about the most concise one I have read. “the physical constants required to make this universe work are suspiciously ‘tuned’ which implies a designer, whereas the opposing arguement is that due to physical interactions everything settles down to these mutually required constants values and no God is required”

    And that to my mind is not logic. (1) “due to physical interactions everything settles down to these mutually required constants values and no God is required” implies chaos and no organization in the beginning and things settle down. This is entropy working a reverse direction. And this manifests patterns from which the human mind deduce constants could be design too. The paradox is we are observing organizations breaking eventually and black holes and event horizons when all our laws are negated. (2) In my mind creation is not a non participatory affair by the God or Gods – rather it could very well be Uncreation and God / Gods everywhere and sacredness in everything.
    Thanks for this opportunity and your post that appears to be stirring up the grey matter.

    Comment by kedarnath — September 7, 2010 @ 5:03 pm | Reply

  13. “sacredness in everything.”

    Once there were two snowmen in the artic, Rev Coaleyes and Prof Carrotnose. Rev Coaleyes One day Rev says “I think that All of this is made by Cold. Do you believe in Cold Prof” The Prof says “I have no evidence or requirement for such a concept as Cold”. Then one day the intellectual Sun came out. Suddenly they both got it, briefly.

    Comment by Steve — September 8, 2010 @ 4:06 am | Reply

  14. The big bang was a high entropy source(low structure) As the universe cools, structure increases and entropy reduces. Black holes are high entropy sinks. Structure reduces and entropy increases. Ice crystals form as temperature reduces. The big bang is on going and ‘could’ be being fed by the black holes. A bit like one of those closed system fountains. There is nothing “sacred” about it. In fact its quite dull.

    Comment by Kelly — September 9, 2010 @ 5:07 am | Reply

  15. Seeds are pretty dull until they start to sprout to most of us. The information content in them mind boggling. The universe is definitely a closed system else ti would be multiverse

    Comment by kedarnath — September 10, 2010 @ 1:46 pm | Reply

  16. In “The Grand Design” Stephen Hawking postulates that the M-theory may be the Holy Grail of physics…the Grand Unified Theory which Einstein had tried to formulate and later abandoned. It expands on quantum mechanics and string theories.

    In my e-book on comparative mysticism is a quote by Albert Einstein: “…most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and most radiant beauty – which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive form – this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of all religion.”

    Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity is probably the best known scientific equation. I revised it to help better understand the relationship between divine Essence (Spirit), matter (mass/energy: visible/dark) and consciousness (fx raised to its greatest power). Unlike the speed of light, which is a constant, there are no exact measurements for consciousness. In this hypothetical formula, basic consciousness may be of insects, to the second power of animals and to the third power the rational mind of humans. The fourth power is suprarational consciousness of mystics, when they intuit the divine essence in perceived matter. This was a convenient analogy, but there cannot be a divine formula.

    Comment by Ron Krumpos — September 10, 2010 @ 8:31 pm | Reply

  17. If you don’t define your terms you can say anything. The physical constants are not ”out there’. They are a function of our mental models of the universe. Without these numerical physical constants our models don’t work but the universe still would. ‘Nature’ does not have to ‘know’ pi in order to draw a circle, in fact neither do we. Pi is mentally derived from the circle, The circle is not derived from pi. Hawkins is confusing mental models with physical material reality which does not use numbers. IF there is anything spiritual it is in our heads not in the rock. Or to put it another way God is in the heads of believers. Which is ok so are science models.

    Comment by Steve — September 11, 2010 @ 4:22 am | Reply

  18. good day,

    “IF there is anything spiritual it is in our heads not in the rock. Or to put it another way God is in the heads of believers.”

    I have conviction that there is plurality of Gods – which some cultures believe to be paganism. And in the culture I belong Stephen Hawkings is respected for his thinking powers but not necessarily what he reports of a single God. His reports are not empirical enough catering to the peoples of the globe and hence not empirical enough to be taken seriously. They are for believers in monotheism. I dont blame people for seeing one that cannot be seen when I see many that can be seen and hence sacredness in everything.

    Everything is in the head. “We use our 5 senses + 1 logic to make sense of reality or energy impinging on them”. This perceived reality is not as straight forward, mechanistic and empirical as we may like to think. A substantial part of the work of the brain is correcting the information on the reality it receives to what it has learnt from experience. The perception of depth and distance is learnt. The mind is sacred too.

    The mind knows that what it is receiving is not the entirety of the universe around it. It moves the body to another vantage point and yet another. When it thinks it is cost effective it suggests developing devices to gather information and sensors, probes, telescopes are devised. The mind knows with experience that there is reality, illusion and falsehood. And there is nothing drastic about falsehood that too is temporary in the infinite. It also knows with experience that what was thought to be reality can move paradigmatically into the realm of the illusion or falsehood. And vice versa. Scientific inquiry and physics can be 99.9999 any more 9s but never 100. In the relam of biology 95% is considered relatively stable reporting. The best guage for the scientific method is be self critical.

    Defining spirituality is needed. Is it just a “high” achieved by a particular belief. This “high”, biochemically cold be endorphin. And has been simulated or enhanced by “drugs”

    With sheer will power of the senses we cannot perceive nor understand anything (1) we see anything because it is different from the background (2) when we do not see anything it can be because (I have will

    fully entered blank spaces – and blank spaces are characters not nothing. This is willful camouflage) The blank spaces that cannot be seen can be by design or it could be eally void. My point is if an object, that not humans have created i.e by God or Gods or God / Gods themselves do not wish to make presence felt it could be willful camouflage. The crux and continuing challenge to atheistic scientists is finding out the nature of things not found. Finding things is no big deal. And conjecturing is also ok – depends on who and how many are going to take it seriously. As far as I am concerned I am reminded of story that I heard about 50 years back. Three sages were meditating in the Himalayas. After a long period of silence one said “The universe is like a mango”. A number of years passed. Then the second spoke up. “Why is it like a mango?”. A number of years again passed. The first said, “Ok have it your way. The universe is not like a mango”. The third never spoke.

    Comment by kedarnath — September 13, 2010 @ 4:42 am | Reply

  19. And your point is ?

    Comment by Steve — September 13, 2010 @ 5:03 am | Reply

  20. There is no way the universe can be without a creator

    Comment by kedarnath — September 13, 2010 @ 7:00 am | Reply

  21. You cannot use logic like “‘IF’ Gods themselves do not wish to make presence felt it could be willful camouflage” to even imply the existence of something. This is the arguement of ‘God could be hiding’. If you are looking for something you haven’t found without any evidence that ‘it’ does exist then this is your imagination working (which is where God exists). A rock is just a rock. You may think that rocks are wonderful creations of God but the rock doesn’t.

    “There is no way the universe can be without a creator” Isn’t it incredible that the moon is at just the right distance from Earth for its mass. God must have put it there. OR b) Gravity put it there because that is the orbit where the forces balance.

    We have been taught to ‘see’ through mental models. We need to learn to see ‘through’ mental models. That goes for both Religions and Science. Science may be limited but at least it is not allowed to just make things up.

    Comment by Steve — September 14, 2010 @ 4:37 am | Reply

  22. “then this is your imagination working” Not true (sorry) it COULD be your soul, but make sure it is!

    Comment by Steve — September 14, 2010 @ 4:56 am | Reply

  23. good day,

    We have been taught to ‘see’ through mental models. We need to learn to see ‘through’ mental models. That goes for both Religions and Science. Science may be limited but at least it is not allowed to just make things up.

    You mean everybody ought to think in some body else’s way of modelling and yet to call themselves free thinkers? Alfred Russel – developed a whole school of maths without axioms. More than we can ever learn about the letter of science is what we learn about the spirit of science from the womb. The mother is more than all nobel laureates put together in all subjects for a child. And her logic is unbeatable – she says you are the most beautiful child to one and she also says the same to her other child. Now our “mental models” go hay wire – how is possible to have two mosts – that is bad maths and bad logic is what the professors may scream. But the fact is if the mother were asked and explained the whole subject of mental models and elements of logic of comparisons. All mothers on this planet would say that is a trick question – “both the children are part of me – the question is stupid – you are asking whether my left cheek or arm is more beautiful than my right”

    So the models of all logic need not fail in some distant place in some university or far away in the universe or when we are thinking about God. And because it fails it does not mean lesser intellect – nor models of learning. If there is a big universe out there there is as big a universe in here within our minds that enables us to try and conceive its immensity. And all logic for trying to discover God/Gods would fail if the whole universe including us were part of the same. We may be like fish wanting to know what water is. There is one way and the only way is not good for the poor fish. This is the reason I wrote, that there is need to study the concept of space and its nature. What is it? Has it any limits? Is there any interaction at all with it and wave particles that travel in it. What have our friends to say on the extent of space when the supposed Big bang took place – What happens to space at black holes. And this is not “just making up things” The atom is a unit all right of what? energy in a unit space. Models of the atom show a lot of nothing ness- space in which the particle waves exist. And quantum energies in them are different in different places. Well in short I think there are plenty of things scientists have to study in the Universe.

    Nothing wrong with teaching methods, it is accepting the fact that learning has always been free. As mentioned earlier in the culture to which I belong, a school of thought is “that objective of study of the living frog is debatably met by killing it, dissecting it and studying its innards – you may lose track of the objective – the alive frog”.

    Thank God you say “Science may be limited”. Not many accept that. You continue, “but at least it is not allowed to just make things up.” Which is not a really called for accusation against people of all and every faith.

    Stephen Hawkins is welcome to his opinions of God – And others to their. Thank God that history proves our paradigms have not be one and one alone despite “authority” of majorities, or religious heads or now “scientists” thinking their ignorance out aloud.As far as i am concerned I am not buying his books any more. I think he has already said what there was to be said.

    Comment by kedarnath — September 15, 2010 @ 12:48 am | Reply

  24. “Thank God that history proves our paradigms have not be one and one alone DESPITE “authority” of majorities, or RELIGIOUS HEADS or now “SCIENTISTS” thinking their ignorance out aloud.” (my emphasis)

    Exactly my point. Hence both will melt under the sun of intellect (the snowmen). Imagine that any doctorine (eg science or a religion) was imposable on a society or individual to the point where they can determine what you believe. How would we escape that? What if there are two gods and one is a controlling god of concepts of mind and the other a true source of life. How would you overcome the former?

    Comment by Steve — September 15, 2010 @ 4:37 am | Reply

  25. good day steve,

    “Imagine that any doctorine (eg science or a religion) was imposable on a society or individual to the point where they can determine what you believe. How would we escape that?

    Remember what mother said – “Beware of strangers”. And what father said “Caveat Emptor – buyer beware”.

    What if there are two gods and one is a controlling god of concepts of mind and the other a true source of life. How would you overcome the former?” is on a brand of religion “Caveat Emptor – buyer beware” again.

    The whole point is Science and theism. Man’s problems with communication or lack of it with the other man is relatively nothing when we consider Man – Machine communications. We are going to need a lot of clarity in that. Space travel, robotic intelligence and our increasing dependence on that leaves no scope to conjecture and error in programs or conflicting paradigms.

    Isaac Asimov brilliantly portrayed potential problems in the Brave New World far ahead of his time. Asimov’s core 3 laws in robotics can turn the intelligent robot to madness – (the movies Space odyssey 2001, Matrix, Terminator are restating the same potential problem.) These laws have no concept of God / Gods in them nor the true nature of life.

    In order to explain what a machine ought not to harm by action or inaction – the concept of life has to be explained The principle characteristic of life according to ancient civilizations is that it is divine manifestation of universal law of birth, growth, decay, dissolution and death. Mortal means that which dies. It has to be taught that the robot, the rock, the bug and Man exist by the same divine principles. Among a number of things, that gravity is a divine law. Physics is a great help understanding the thresholds of our tolerance and the limits to which we and the robots can use it safely rock the cradle, swing, slide, or in a ball game. Control measures are not after thoughts for own safety. And forethoughts are not worth their salt without a silent prayer.

    Devotion and doubt are aspects of the same thing that goad Man’s intellect.

    Comment by kedarnath — September 15, 2010 @ 9:12 am | Reply

  26. Hi

    Two things are discussed here. God and creation.

    First to God. What God ? Is it the old testament type of God ? If you are referring to that, then I can see your problems with the creation issue.

    My lessons in this area are recently learnt. In the Christian/Islamic viewpoint that dominates God question, the intellect can play havoc and damage all of their argument. And that ends up with the classical chicken or egg question. I asked my simple mother these series of questions “from where this came ?” ending up in being dismissed for the session.

    The Indian spiritual tradition , especially Hindu, does look at the created gross world in a different way. It says creation is eternal. It does not stop with that. Then comes the creator question. No doubt He is eternal. And there is a third truth which might solve some fundamental questions. That is the bondage between the creation and creator. Hindu philosophy states that this is also eternal.

    There is no creation or destruction. A simple rearrangement of matter. The indestructibles take refuge in the rearrangements. (Guess what )

    Here we do not confront Einstein or Newton.

    Next coming to Design. That is also a law in the domain of the rearrangement. To understand this, one needs ‘inductive Logic’ (remember Francis Bacon ?) rather than the standard and limited ‘deductive’ logic.

    I state that God question is individual first. As questions flow from a person, he is bound to find answers. I for one think the bible comes a very poor choice in this search. It has no answers.

    Comment by Venkat — September 16, 2010 @ 12:02 am | Reply

  27. As per Hindu philosophy, God is not seperate from nature or universe.
    God means everything.God is supposed to be Saguna Sakar as well as
    Nirguna Nirakara.
    Which means whatever we sense or experince is God and also whatever we
    are not able to experienxe is also God.
    Therefore whether God created Universe or not : This quetion does not
    arise at all.
    God was there before big bang, and God is after big bang.

    Comment by Prafulla Mendki — September 16, 2010 @ 2:51 am | Reply

  28. kedarnath

    “Devotion and doubt are aspects of the same thing that goad Man’s intellect.”
    This is no bad thing.

    “the movies …. the Matrix,”
    Yes but what happens if movie is true for example imagine if someone had found the wiring!!

    The man machine problem…. Alan Turin says that if you cannot think of a question which shows a machine is not thinking then you have to assume it is thinking. Maybe but a five year old would not ask a ‘deep’ a question as a (say) 30 year old and so would have a more superficial answer. ie This robot is living and thinking. This is not a statement about the robot it is a statement about the quality of the questioner’s intellect. This is where the man/machine problem starts and stops. The buyer can only beware if the buyer is aware, otherwise any ‘local’ religion will do. Mormons (eg.) don’t congregate in certain cities, cerain cities generate Mormons (etc for all religion) see Matrix film point.

    Venkat Hi

    “There is no creation or destruction. A simple rearrangement of matter. The indestructibles take refuge in the rearrangements. Here we do not confront Einstein or Newton.”

    Brahma Vishnu Shiva Creation sustainer destruction. Why do you assume that this cycle is not a scientific issue. The indestructables may ‘know’ the secret to surviving this cycle (Noah). But this cycle may not be a natural as we think!! 12960 years is a pretty suspiscious time period!!

    “I for one think the bible comes a very poor choice in this search. It has no answers.”
    All the sacred books have the answer (or clues) the fact that we are spending (wasting) time in the persuit of trivia is not the problem of the writers of these books. If you give a book by Shakespear to a monkey he would probably eat it. Or worse still worship it.

    Comment by Steve — September 16, 2010 @ 4:43 am | Reply

  29. “I asked my simple mother these series of questions “from where this came ?” ending up in being dismissed for the session.

    And problems arose by refusing to remain dismissed – and doing better things which she expects. The simple truth is that she is your creator and she is the spirit of science – What she has by not saying anything is what I have been trying to say in a lot of words.

    The issues in this blog is in bold letters – Exposing PseudoAstronomy – Stephen Hawking, God, and Design, and the Universe. Science ought to stick to science.

    Comment by kedarnath — September 16, 2010 @ 4:51 am | Reply

  30. Good idea. Could you try and convince the religions to stay out of science.

    Comment by Steve — September 22, 2010 @ 3:24 am | Reply

  31. “Good idea. Could you try and convince the religions to stay out of science.”

    I may be crazy but I am not nuts. Sorry, I have to catch a plane – Could you ask my neighbour.

    Comment by sleeping8 — September 22, 2010 @ 9:22 am | Reply

  32. “…And Hawking does have a book he’s trying to sell…”
    Non sequitur and yes hawkins does have books to sell alone with other money influencing motivations

    Comment by Sam — January 20, 2016 @ 12:28 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: