The God Particle and Something from Nothing

Start with nothing  . . . absolutely nothing. No air. No matter . . . not even an atom. No energy. No space. No thought. No time. Just a long dead silence. This is the evolutionist’s reality before the dawn of something becoming everything. At some infinitesimal moment in time all the stuff that makes up our world came into being. Like the Millennium Falcon coming out of light speed, the cosmos appeared. Once there was nothing, now there is everything.

Even the discovery of the Higgs boson “God Particle” can’t save the evolutionary theorists since it’s something rather than nothing. How did the Particle get here? Why does it act the way it does? Why did scientists believe that it existed even though they never observed its existence?

In 2010, the darling of everything materialistic, Stephen W. Hawking, argued that the laws of physics allow for the universe to have created itself . . . from nothing. In his book, The Grand Design, Hawking states:

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”

This is science? Where are the experiments to back up the claims he attributes to physics? The first thing a budding scientist learns is that spontaneous generation does not happen. Louis Pasteur and Francesco Redi’s experiments disproved the theory some time ago.

Hawking is theorizing. But because he is a noted scientist whose speculations fit what atheists want and need to believe in order to make their theoretical worldview work, some people are willing to believe him. “Stephen Hawking said it; I believe him; that settles it.”

The religious component to atheism is evident when you listen carefully to the high priests of the system. Take, for example, Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion) and Steven Pinker (The Better Angels of Our Nature) who were asked to respond to the argument that evolutionary scientists do not allow outside criticism of the evolutionary worldview. How can evolutionists do this when science is a discipline of open inquiry?

Stanley Fish observed something remarkable in the way Dawkins explained how scientists do science:

[W]hen we accept the conclusions of scientific investigation we necessarily do so on trust (how many of us have done or could replicate the experiments?) and are thus not so different from religious believers, Dawkins and Pinker asserted that the trust we place in scientific researchers, as opposed to religious pronouncements, has been earned by their record of achievement and by the public rigor of their procedures. In short, our trust is justified, theirs is blind.

It was at this point that Dawkins said something amazing, although neither he nor anyone else picked up on it. He said: in the arena of science you can invoke Professor So-and-So’s study published in 2008, “you can actually cite chapter and verse.”1

An odd choice of words: “chapter and verse.” Scientism is a religion with its own inspired books (“studies” by scientists).

It doesn’t matter if there isn’t any empirical science behind anything Hawking says on the subject, as long as they hear him say, via a voice synthesizer designed and created by someone, “I think Science can explain the Universe without the need for God.” Even some liberals aren’t buying what Stephen is hocking:

In saying this, Hawking doesn’t speak like a scientist: he speaks like a (speculative) philosopher. . . . To say that [the universe created itself] spontaneously is not an answer: it’s an excuse for an answer. When Hawking says that the spontaneous self-creation of the universe “out of nothing” is evidence that a creator was not involved, he is not speaking as a scientist. He is not making a scientific statement. His statement is pure theology — of the negative kind typical of atheists.2

And yet, Hawking’s assertions are taken seriously as scientific fact while someone who questions the theory of evolution — a process that has never been observed — is made out to be anti-science.

  1. Stanley Fish, “Citing Chapter and Verse: Which Scripture Is the Right One?, The New York Times (March 26, 2012). []
  2. Ervin Laszlo writing for the Huffington Post. []