With the death of Stephen Hawking, there have been numerous articles about his life and work.
As to his life, Hawking deserves credit for not giving up in the face of nearly insurmountable odds. Living completely incapacitated for decades, not able to speak or move a voluntary muscle, would decimate and depress a lesser person.
There’s a lot to learn from Hawking for his determination and stamina. There are young people retreating to their “safe places” and falling apart over manufactured “micro-aggressions.” Hawking didn’t abide any of their manufactured nonsense. They should be made to spend a week in his wheelchair.
The one thing I don’t understand about Hawking and those who idolized him and his materialistic ideology is that it was based on the belief that the brain evolved from some common ancestor that was akin to a monkey’s brain.
Why is anyone listening to atheists like Michael Ruse, E.O Wilson, and Stephen Hawking who believe that “we humans are modified monkeys, not the favored Creation of a Benevolent God on the Sixth Day”? By their own words, their brains evolved from monkeys or some common simian or simian-like ancestor.
“I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail,” Hawking said. “There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.” Hawking used a computer. Did it spontaneously build and program itself from bits of silicon, copper, and plastics? If the brain is a computer, then who programmed it?
How does an evolved human brain know “there is no heaven or afterlife” when its spatial and intellectual limitations don’t know everything about own solar system? In fact, we don’t even know everything about what’s on Earth let alone the cosmos that Hawking claimed is limitless, without defined borders, but he and other atheists with an evolved mass of gray tissue are sure there is no God.
In Hawking’s 2010 book The Grand Design (2010), he said a creator is “not necessary” to bring the cosmos into existence, and yet he did not and could not offer any real experimental scientific evidence to show how the universe came into existence. His conjecture was more metaphysics than physics, more philosophy than science. A creator was necessary to design and create his wheelchair and the voice synthesizer, but we are to believe that the most complex living entity we know – human beings – evolved over eons of time from a primordial soup of chemicals with no design or programming.
It’s no wonder that the theory of something-from-nothing evolution is called a fairy tale for grownups.
How does the evolved possessor of an evolved brain know if the firing of the neural synapses is sending out the right signals about reality?
C. S. Lewis explained that “a strict materialism refutes itself for the reason given long ago by Professor Haldane: ‘If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true … and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.’ (Possible Worlds, 209).”1
In another place, Lewis explains the significance (or lack thereof) of an evolved brain:
If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on bio-chemistry, and bio-chemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any significance than the sound of the wind in the trees. Christian theology can fit in science, art, morality, and the sub-Christian religions…. The scientific point of view cannot fit in any of these things, not even science itself.”2
Now we’re learning that supposedly undesigned humans want to design a recombinant human/chimp species.
David Barash proposes that society should sanction the making of human-chimp hybrids…. His main argument for pursuing the creation of a human-chimp hybrid is based on the belief that humans have an unwarranted belief that we are special creatures. As Barash puts it, “Moreover, I propose that the fundamental take-home message of such creation would be to drive a stake into the heart of that destructive disinformation campaign of discontinuity, of human hegemony over all other living things. … And—more important,” he writes, “for any human being currently insistent upon his or her species’ specialness, to the ultimate detriment of literally millions of other individuals of millions of other species, such a development could well be a real mind expander and paradigm buster.”
This is bizarre, but Barash’s intent is clear: to rid the world of the notion that humans are special, that they are nothing more than a highly evolved animal on the spectrum of animalism. Did you notice his use of “creation”? All is created except the crowning creation of God: men and women who were created in God’s image. This belief must be destroyed. Humans must be brought down to the level of animated “stuff.”
What kind of human-chimp hybrid will result with such a “creation”? Will murderous, rapist, and cannibalistic chimpanzees dominate the human genome? The claim is made that chimpanzees share 97 percent of human DNA. I can assure you that the missing three percent makes an enormous difference. Can you imagine what would happen if Microsoft released a program with a three percent error rate?
Do chimpanzees have a moral code or a justice system? Since they are supposedly so close to us in their genetic makeup, should they be prosecuted for crimes? Naturalist and filmmaker David Attenborough was asked, “What has been your most distressing/upsetting moment in your career?”
Seeing chimpanzees kill monkeys. They do this to eat them. They chase them, set an ambush, catch them, and tear them apart. (Gizmodo)
Did these chimpanzees do anything that’s morally wrong? Remember, there is no God. There is only animated matter that came together over eons of time with no purpose or forethought. All that you see is an accident of something from nothing “creation.” There is no moral or immoral DNA. DNA just is, and as Richard Dawkins writes, and “we dance to its music.”
Here’s the video of what Attenborough is describing:
Attenborough “strongly opposes creationism and its offshoot ‘intelligent design,” saying that a survey that found a quarter of science teachers in state schools believe that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in science lessons was ‘really terrible.’”
Instead, let’s show children the above video of our closest non-human relative doing what comes naturally with no thought of morality and ask them if what they are doing is morally right or wrong. Then ask an atheist, “Who says?”