All posts by Wintery Knight

https://winteryknight.com/

Book review of Stephen Hawking’s “The Grand Design” by Edgar Andrews

First, who is Edgar Andrews?

Professor Edgar H. Andrews (BSc, PhD, DSc, FInstP, FIMMM, CEng, CPhys.) is Emeritus Professor of Materials at the University of London and an international expert on the science of large molecules. In 1967 he set up the Department of Materials at Queen Mary College, University of London, and served both as its Head and later as Dean of Engineering. He has published well over 100 scientific research papers and books, together with two Bible Commentaries and various works on science and religion and on theology. His book From Nothing to Nature has been translated into ten languages.

Edgar Andrews was an international consultant to the Dow Chemical Company (USA) for over thirty years and to the 3M Company (USA) for twenty years. He was a non-executive director of Denbyware PLC throughout the 1970s and for five years a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of Neste Oy, the national oil company of Finland.

And now an excerpt from the book review: (H/T Apologetics 315)

Hawking and Mlodinow declare: ‘According to M-theory, ours is not the only universe. Instead, M-theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing. Their creation does not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god. Rather, these multiple universes arise naturally from physical law. They are a prediction of science’ (p.9).

So what is this magical M-theory? The authors are rather coy about it. ‘M-theory’, they say, ‘Is not a theory in the usual sense. It is a whole family of different theories, each of which is a good description of observations only in some range of physical situations’ (p.8). Theoretical physicist Lee Smolin is more explicit: ‘… we still do not know what M-theory is, or whether there is any theory deserving of the name’ (The trouble with physics, Allen Lane, 2007, p.146).

The fact is that M-theory is an untestable mathematical construction which many scientists believe has no bearing on physical reality. But that doesn’t deter our authors because they don’t believe in ‘objective reality’ anyway. What we think is ‘real’, they say, is simply a model assembled in our brains from raw data input by our senses. But, confusingly, the authors then claim that the best models are those that reflect the way things really do happen in the real world — appealing to the very objective reality they say does not exist! Confused? Me too.

But it gets worse. They claim that M-theory (whatever it might be) predicts not one universe but a multiverse — a vast collection of universes which cannot be observed or known to us in any way. On their own criterion, this makes M-theory a very bad model indeed. So it’s hardly a useful replacement for God.

Here’s a better book to read if you want to understand how belief in God relates to experimental science.

My Dad just finished reading his book “Who Made God?” and called me up to tell me how much he liked the book. My Dad is not a scientist, yet he read the whole thing and learned a lot about science. This is the book for people who haven’t read a thing about science and religion. It’s easy to understand because he explains the same thing over and other giving more and more detail. Even a child can understand the first explanation, and then he keeps layering on details until he gets up to the state-of-the-art.

Remember Brian Auten of Apologetics 315 picked this book as his favorite of 2010. You can’t go wrong!

My Dad is now reading my copy of “Is God Just a Human Invention?” by Jonathan Morrow and Sean McDowell. I’m working on “Is God a Moral Monster?” by Paul Copan. I like books where difficult questions are asked and then careful answers are given. Then when people ask me the same questions, I can answer them using what I’ve learned – and often phrase the question even more clearly and forcefully than they did when they asked me.

Woman meets stranger who rescued her during ice storm

Wes sent me this story of a heroic rescue.

Full text:

A woman saved by a stranger gets her wish, to say thank you to her weather hero in person.

Greta Nelson’s car slid off the road and into a pond during last week’s ice storm. Less than 24 hours later, CBS Atlanta helped reunite the Nelson with the man who saved her. Nelson waited eagerly to meet the man who she says saved her life.

Thursday night she met Robinson’s entire family.“That’s my saving angel. Thank you so much, thank you. Now I remember, I remember the face,” said Nelson when she saw Joe Robinson.

Until the moment they saw each other again, Nelson only knew him as Joe, the man who stopped during last week’s ice storm when her car slid off the road and into a pond. That night, Robinson had just slid on the same icy patch when he looked in his rear view mirror.“I saw her just whip off the road and over this bank and sort of just disappeared,” said Robinson.“All of a sudden I heard the splash and I thought, ‘I’m in water? Oh God, I’m in water,’” said Nelson.“I was kind of just going through the scenario of what I have to do. Do I have to get all the way in the water?” said Robinson.“All of a sudden I heard him knocking on the back of the car,” said Nelson.

Nelson was on her way home from work and Robinson was on his way to work when they say the meeting “the heavens set up” happened. “He sent the right person. God sent the right person. Just the fact that he is the kind of person he is, is why my life was saved,” said Nelson. Robinson has two new nicknames, hero and angel.“I don’t think I’m either one,” said Robinson.Robinson said he’s thankful he was able to help Nelson.“That’s the way I feel about it. I’m glad I could help her and I’m glad she’s safe,” said Robinson.

I think it goes without saying that we want to have more men like this, and to hold out men like this as examples for younger men to follow. How do we do that?

And we really need to make a big deal of men like this instead of celebrating sports figures and Hollywood celebrities and people who read teleprompters. This is a REAL man. REAL men have specific roles that they are meant to fill. REAL men are meant to be providers (work hard, keep what you earn, provide for your family and charities), protectors (be armed, kill terrorists, deter criminals, defeat lies with reason and evidence), and moral/spiritual leaders (have authority to teach about morality and religion in the home, do not be subverted by the school system, demonstrate devotion and love for women and children). We need to be encouraging and choosing real men who can do these things.

We all have to think about the messages that we are sending young men about what we want them to be. We have to be careful not to discourage good men from their aggressiveness and protectiveness. And we have to be careful not to tempt them down towards selfishness and sexuality instead of upward towards chastity and chivalry. If we want good men, we may have to think about what is best for men instead of thinking about ideologies and -isms. If we want men to be providers, we have to educate them to be providers and encourage them to work hard and to take responsibility by letting them keep what they earn. And we need to encourage women to choose GOOD men – and teach them why they should choose good men – and what they are choosing good men to do. Women need to understand what society and family requires from men, and how to prefer men who demonstrate skill at those responsibilities.

Women aren’t going to get good men by taxing them, disarming them, and then offering them sex without any expectation of having them first demonstrate that they can be committed protectors and providers.

What is the unborn?

This video may help you to see what is really going on in there.

Chris S. sent me the video.