briefhist1 A couple of weeks back I posted a weblog about creation that engendered some debate. One of the comments from a reader was about Hawking’s view of the creator. Stephen Hawking holds Newton’s chair as professor of mathematics at Cambridge, and his twenty year old A Brief History of Time is still one of the most readable books on an admittedly difficult subject: the beginning of our universe. I must thank my brother Wyn, who gave me this book on my fortieth birthday, for a gift that continues all these years later to confirm my faith in an omnipotent God.

My reader questioned my assertion that even Hawking, as brilliant as he might be, can not find a logical explanation for the creation of the universe that does not encounter God at some point, although he and others have been attempting to do so for centuries. I hated to bury the writings of such a genius in a response comment, so here are Hawking’s own words; he writes “Why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion that separates models that recollapse (hence, no creation) from those that go on expanding forever (hence, so widely dispersed that particles can’t coalesce to form matter), so that even now, ten thousand million years later, it is still expanding at nearly the critical rate? If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hudred thousand million million (100,000,000,000,000,000), the universe would have recollapsed.” (p.122)

Hawking continues “The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but they reflect a certain underlying order. The laws of science contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electron charge and the ratio of mass between the proton and the electron. The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life. For example, if the electron charge of the electron had only been slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would have exploded. It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as an act of a God who intended to create beings like us.” (p.127)

Lesser minds than Hawking’s dismiss God as if by not thinking about creation they can avoid the thought that there is a Creator. Hawking admits that he is uncomfortable with the concept of a loving creator. If I had half as brilliant a mind and I was trapped in his body, I would have doubts myself; that is only natural. But to dismiss the overwhelming scientific evidence for a Creator is neither natural nor smart. If you are reading this and you do not believe that God created the universe, and all life within it, then what do you do with the fact that the brightest mind on earth cannot avoid that conclusion?

Advertisements