I expected to have my faith seriously challenged when I read "Why God Did Not Create the Universe"
(Weekend Journal, Sept. 4), an excerpt from the book "The Grand
Design." Rather, what I read was a joke. It's clear that when scientists
Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow discount faith in exchange for
science they are being funny. Their explanations require such high
levels of intricate faith that they make Jesus walking on water look
like a parlor trick.
They tell us that we are
the spontaneous creation of another universe. Dumb question maybe, but
where did that universe come from, and the one before that and the one
before that? Where is the science? Oh, I get it. It is based on
assumption not faith.
To see the world through
only the eyes of faith and be unwilling to recognize patterns that we
call science is to be closed to the truth. To see the patterns without
recognizing that we are part of a greater mosaic, the coordination of
which is beyond our comprehension is, likewise, to be closed to the
truth. As Billy Graham, the Dalai Lama, Mother Teresa and Joyce Meyer
are people of faith, Messrs. Hawking and Mlodinow are men of assumption.
Chuck Markham
Hamburg, N.J.
The authors take their
theory that "our cosmic habitat—now the entire observable universe—is
just one of many" to be sufficient explanation for the "finely-tuned"
nature of our peculiar cosmos. Yet they implicitly concede that they are
unable to prove or disprove their theory by measuring the tuning of
other universes. Thus, their theory fails the standard of "experimental
test" which they use to elevate science over religion, which they
characterize by "ignorance of nature's ways."
That the founder of this
scientific method, Sir Francis Bacon, was as devout a Christian as
Copernicus, Kepler, Descartes, Boyle, Faraday, Mendel and Kelvin must
irritate them endlessly.
John Andrews
Bethesda, Md.
The excerpt mentions that
"the idea that the universe was designed to accommodate mankind appears
in theologies and mythologies dating from thousands of years ago." As a
physicist trained at Imperial College, with additional training in
spirituality and theology, I wonder if it is not more logical to state
that it is mankind who was designed to accommodate the laws of the
universe.
Christopher Eriksson
Tucson, Ariz.
I will continue to include Mr. Hawking in my prayers. He may not believe that they are necessary, but I most certainly do.
Jim C. Griggs
Garland, Texas
The authors say that the
new "laws" of physics disprove God since those "laws" posit that
something can come from nothing. With due respect, gentlemen, the laws
of logic trump yours. Nothing comes from nothing. Something comes from
something. Here, Newton and Parmenides remain correct.
Mark Osmun
Santa Rosa, Calif.
God in heaven happened to
hear a group of scientists on Earth expounding on the progress made by
modern science and the fact that God was irrelevant and might not even
exist. Intrigued, God assumed human form and popped down to earth and
joined the conversation.
"You say that you are so
advanced that you can create life from mere dirt and that God is not
part of the equation?," God inquired. "Yes, that's right," said one
scientist. "Let me see how you do that," said God in disguise.
The scientist bent down and picked up a handful of dirt. God looked at him and said, "Oh, no, no, no. Get your own dirt."
Lewis J. Walker
Johns Creek, Ga.
Why is it so important to
some scientists to show that a creator doesn't exist? It's no less
difficult to believe in a sovereign creator than it is to accept
theories that are untestable and require the acceptance of
improbabilities that we would never accept when addressing any other
topic.
Rex Smith
Portland, Ore.
I am a fan of none of
these mythologies. I don't teach intelligent design in my science
courses because it is outside the realm of modern science. However,
until and unless hard evidence of "other universes" comes in, how can I
(or anyone) justify the teaching of the multiverse idea in a science
classroom? The elevation of the multiverse mythology within science to
anything more than a pure speculative idea personally embarrasses me.
Jerry Schad
Professor of Physical Science and Astronomy
San Diego Mesa College
San Diego
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 