Member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences Debunks God?

Article Republished by permission from The Remnant

Prof. Hawking’s latest book “The Grand Design”, with its “multiverse” hypothesis, is, of course, just another attempt to debunk God. This in itself is nothing new, but the fact that its author is a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences should give ground for reflection.

The question is how does the anti-God club get away with it? If its ideas were based upon sound science there would be some excuse, but in the case of Hawking’s book, astrophysicists themselves admit that his hypotheses and others regarding the cosmos are speculative to the extreme. There is no empirical proof whatsoever; everything is based upon extrapolation.

The answer to the enigma is not difficult to find as most of the scientific community are non-believers. If one of their members has a scientific kite to fly which knocks the Creator, all obstacles are removed from its path. Even to the point of getting one of their club admitted to the scientific elite of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences! The fact that the remnant of the once powerful Catholic intelligentsia is impregnated with evolutionary philosophy is an inevitable consequence. At one time some of those carrying weight both within the Church and in the scientific community had a say, but their voice has been drowned by the incessant barraging of Darwinists.

Best-selling books like Dawkins “The God Delusion,” chalking up fortunes in royalties for their authors, make no pretence that their mission is to dethrone the Creator in favour of science. Coming from a member of the prestigious Catholic Academy of Sciences, albeit with the same aim, Hawking’s latest book has all the trappings of a Trojan Horse. Prof. Hawking is a member of the Catholic establishment and is attacking from inside by simple presentation of his Pontifical privileged golden card entrée to the Vatican itself.

Fortunately all is not gloom. The situation could be about to change for at least two reasons. The first is that the fuel supply driving Darwinism has been cut off! Time is the fuel! The element of time needed for evolution to take place has now been shown both in the laboratory and in the field to be wrongly calculated. The experimental evidence has been published. Darwin and his disciples based their theory of biological evolution upon the long periods of time needed for sedimentary particles to deposit and bury the fossils, which, allegedly, provided evidence of evolution. Now, instead of the speculated millions of years, sedimentary mechanics shows that sediments deposit as a function of current velocity which is relatively very fast. Without a sufficiency of time the evolutionary edifice must eventually come tumbling down (for details see www.sedimentology.fr)

The second reason is biological. For some time, attention has focussed upon animal instincts and their effect upon man. Questions are being asked. How it is that animals depend upon their instincts for survival, whereas man can only survive by rational thought? Instinct they say is written into the genes of animals and plants. It is passed on from generation to generation. The Monarch butterfly migrates annually from Canada to Mexico. Because of its short life span, the population that leaves Canada is not the same as the one that returns. Neither knows the route, but millions of butterflies take it each year. How do they do it? The text book reason is “instinct”. Slowly, in the evolutionary indoctrinated biologists’ minds a blurred idea is spawning, that instinct is in fact a programme. Just as a computer needs a programme to perform its incredible feats, some of them are wondering if the same applies in the world of irrational living things.

Biologists in the relatively new science of biomimetics (or bionics) are copying biological systems found in living things for engineering and modern technology. For instance plants and trees depend principally on light to energise them. They use a highly sophisticated process to synthesize food directly from carbon dioxide using energy from light. The micro photosynthesis apparatus is a biological machine of such technical complexity it has yet to be copied in the laboratory. It is found in every blade of grass, every leaf and every green thing on earth.

The potential value to mankind of being able to copy a process able to transform light into energy is mindboggling. The origin of biological technology of this complexity has hitherto been explained by “nature” selecting beneficial genetic mutations by random chance. The biological engineering complexity is recognised as such by both biologists and engineers and the possibility of it originating by chance is beginning to be seen as laughable. Mutations are biological aberrations or mistakes. Can one imagine a generation of computers, as yet not even at the conceptual stage, being produced by a chance accumulation of computing mistakes? To any one not blinded by Darwinist philosophy, the requirement of a programmer behind these wonders of nature is self-evident.

Take the simple scenario of pollination: a process by which flowers reproduce. For continuity of the species fertilisation has to take place. For this, the pollen in one flower has to be transported to another flower. The pollen contains the genetic code without which reproduction cannot take place. The transporter is the bee attracted to the flower not only by its pollen but also its nectar. Reaching for the nectar causes the genetically coded pollen to adhere to its fur which brushes off on the subsequent flower it visits. The whole process is simple and effective. Without it the flower would have no descendants, and the species would die out. That the process is necessary and intelligently planned or programmed is difficult not to see.

Pollination is just one link in the chain of being. The interdependence of its separate parts is a biological fact, but one apparently not taken into account by Prof. Hawking, Dawkins et al. They live in a multiverse where science fiction trumps reality. Being assured of a good income, due to royalties and lecturing fees, and hopefully for them an enjoyable life (on this earth!), an estimate of the damage they are doing to people’s faith is incalculable. Erstwhile believers are falling over themselves to buy their books. Instead of the Church’s bastion of science protecting its members from anti-God theories it has opened the way, through one of its most prominent members, for every last vestige of the faith to be swept away.

Thanks to the down-to earth sciences of sedimentology and biomimetics, the detractors of divine intelligence are gradually being unmasked, but how much longer must this go on before a responsible informed Catholic in both science and theology steps in to call a halt?

“There is no place for God in
theories on the creation
of the Universe.”
- Prof. Stephen Hawking,
BBC September 2, 2010