Grand Design and Theory of Everything
This article text is part of our book: “Academic Proof of the Creator Visual/Interactive Book (New Perspectives from the Treatise of Nature)” Click Here for Book Page
Stephen Hawking who tries to substitute the Creator with M-Theory, multiple universes and the law of gravity, says this: “God may exist, but science could explain the universe without a creator. Just like Darwinism ended the necessity of a creator in biology, new theories of physics have made the role of a creator in the formation of the universe unnecessary.”
In his book titled “Grand Design” he claims that “Since there is something called the law of gravitation, the universe could create itself from nothing and has done so indeed. This self-creation is the reason of the fact that something has happened rather than nothing and that the universe and we exist”. And he adds: “It is not necessary to refer to God for the ignition of the spark and the readiness of the universe for functioning”.
In this thinking, which could make some categorical mistake by replying “M Theory” when asked about the origin of the law of gravity, and which seems to forget that laws and theorems themselves do not have the power to create, we are asked to believe that something, which was not existing yet, at a time when it was still not existing, all of a sudden made itself exist for an unknown reason and formed all visible material/objects in this universe.
Is this really true?
Could an art be explained independently of its artist? What kind of an explanation could it be an explanation of a plane only without the laws of thermodynamics without taking into account the engineer designing it and the factory producing it? Would it make sense? You will see that we have answered these questions many times along with the section related to Treatise of Nature. (“Academic Proof of the Creator Visual/Interactive Book – New Perspectives from the Treatise of Nature”)
And even our findings in the previous section where we examined the basic concepts are in themselves very strong and shining answers to that question. Having said that, we also want to share, with great joy and admiration, the wonderful findings of a scientist.
Dr John Lennox, a Math Professor at Oxford University and the writer of the book titled “Let’s keep it between you and me but there is God” evaluates, in a striking way, “Grand Design” and “Theory of Everything”, the books written by Stephen Hawking:
“Stephen Hawking, in a television interview, gave a very interesting reply for a question, and said that the origin of the force of gravity is in M Theory.”
“Scientists create theories which include mathematical laws, in order to explain natural events. However, theories and laws themselves can’t create these natural events. Theories and laws are mathematical explanations for certain things that take place under certain conditions. A law of nature is descriptive and predictive. (Please have a look at the note below). However, it is not creative and it can’t be.
Intermediary Note of the Writer of Explanatory Text: In other words, the law of nature says: “This happens in that way and will happen like that in the future”. If we say it more concretely, saying that laws are descriptive means telling the object is falling because of the force of gravity. When we tell “if we leave the object free, it will fall down” is an example of laws’ being predictive. But it does not necessitate being the creator. It, at most, describes the event.
Now, have a look at this. With the help of Dr. Lennox, we make this much simpler. A five years old kid will also understand it. In other words, we will get across what Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins could not understand, to a five years old kid in the following lines. God willing, they may also understand this. May Allah help them find the true path! We want this sincerely because we share the same pursuit. We think that such giant minds of our world are wasted. We are seriously sad and we can’t get angry at all.
“Newton’s law of gravity can’t create the force of gravity or the object which is affected by the gravity. And even Newton himself realized, it does not either explain the gravity itself. Neither scientific laws could create something or cause something come into being. Newton’s law of motion has never moved any billiard ball over a table. A billiard ball can only be moved with the use of a stick by human muscles. Laws only enable us to observe the movement of the ball and to forecast its course until another event / force interrupts it. Let alone creating anything, laws could not even make a ball move.” explains Dr. John Lennox. Nevertheless, Paul Davies, who himself is a materialist physicist, could say this: “There is no need for a Supernatural Creator in order to explain the Cosmos and the origins of life. The idea of the intervention by a Divine Being has never appealed to me. In my opinion thinking that mathematical laws are so intelligent as to bring all these into existence is more inspirational.
 It only describes its functioning (note of the writer of the explanatory text.)
Dr. John Lennox continues with his striking points: “1+1=2, this simple arithmetic rule has never created anything. This rule has never deposited some money in either my bank account or in someone else’s bank accounts. Today I have $1000 in my bank account. And if I put $ 1000 dollars more tomorrow, this arithmetic rule says I have $2000 in my bank account. But, if I don’t deposit any money and expect it from this rule of arithmetic, then I would stay bankrupt forever. Thinking that laws can do something on their own is no different than thinking that you can earn money just by doing addition. If you have A in your hand, depending on it, you can find B. However, first you should have A in your hand. Laws wouldn’t do it for you. A solid naturalistic world, where the laws of mathematics created the universe and life on their own is nothing more than a science-fiction.
Dr. John Lennox continuous answering claims of new atheism existing in the book titled “Grand Design” and says the following: “Hawking clearly failed to answer this basic question: “Why is there something instead of nothing? Allan Sandage, who won Crafoord Prize, an equivalent of Nobel Prize, answers that question without any doubts as following: “It is not possible for such an order to come into being out of chaos. There must be a factor arranging this order. The creator is a mystery for me. But he is the only explanation why there is some thing created instead of nothing”. Hawking says that the existence of the grand designer is “an old idea” and not the answer of modern science. What does he want to say with this? Modern sciences are a group of sciences on which modern scientists are working. Did Hawking forget about Bill Philips, who won Nobel Prize in physics and still teaching in North America? Did he forget Francis Collins, who is the previous manager of human genome project and a believer in the Creator?
“I can mention the names of many other scientists like these. In my university Oxford, there are many scientists who believe in the creator and they, just like Newton, Kepler, Galileo and others, believe that the only reason why we can do science is the fact that science is a work of a superior mind. Naturally, this is a “very old idea”, however, it is also a very strong idea. Hawking skips all the evidence just to be able to say that this is not the idea of the modern science. In his opinion, the answer to that is multiple universes and again he makes a categorical mistake.
“He puts you in a position where you have to make a choice between multiple universes and the creator. However, the creator could create as many universes as he likes. Couldn’t he? Could multiple universes be an argument by itself against the existence of the creator? As many philosophers spotted immediately, Hawking certainly did not deal with this question. In that way, he shows as if there are two opposing ideas and leads you to be mistaken easily. In this way, he makes you think instinctively that if a scientist believes in a creator, he couldn’t believe in the existence of multiple universes. This is a very clever way of evasion, but it’s not going to work.”
“Moreover, there are many powerful names which do not believe that Hawking is the voice of the modern science. For example, the answer of Sir Roger Penrose, who worked together with Hawking before, is very impressive. He says that the concepts of multiple universes and M Theory mentioned in the book are far from being testable. He says that Hawking’s book is misleading; it gives the impression that it will explain everything but it is not anything like that, and it is not even a theory. We should also mention that the person saying these words, Penrose, is not even a theist, that is, he does not believe in a creator.”
“What is interesting here is that: The existence of multiple universes is not an argument against existence of the creator. Even if this theory were correct verifiable; this would not show the non-existence of the creator. I would like to share with you a witty and meaningful criticism in a newspaper article:”
‘In this short history of modern cosmic physics (Hawking’s book) quantum and relativistic physics laws are shown as miracles in holy books, which are accepted by the majority of people and as things that are to be admired. M Theory talks about “a different thing”, a principal force which is both everywhere and invisible, a force that brings things into being, a creative force. This force can’t be detected with equipment and can’t be examined with mathematical estimations, but it covers all probabilities. He has the capability to be everywhere and do everything and at the same time, it is so mysterious. Does this thing remind you of someone (the creator)?’
“According to the logic behind the arguments of Hawking, science and religion are contradicting with each other. But I do not share this view. A distinguished historian of the science C.S. Lewis makes a very true determination on this point: ‘Why did mankind start to deal with sciences? Because they were expecting that there were laws in nature. The reason why they thought that there were laws of nature is the fact that they believed in a creator.’
In other words, the creator is not an obstacle before the science; he is the reason why science exists. Science is described as a logical activity and this clearly shows another serious mistake in Hawking’s way of thinking. Just like Francis Crick he also wants us to believe that human beings are things just formed with the coming of the basic particles existing in the nature.”
Intermediary Note of the Writer of the Explanatory Text: In 1955, the works carried out by two scientists, James Watson and Francis Crick brought the unbelievably complex structure of DNA and its design into the daylight. DNA Molecule which exists in the nucleus of each one of 100 trillion cells existing in the human body contains a complete construction plan of the human body. Even Francis Crick, who had advocated molecular evolution theory for years, after having discovered DNA admitted that such a complex molecule could not come into being coincidentally, by itself, as a result of evolutionary process, in this way: “In the light of today’s existing information, an honest man could only say the following: In a sense, life has come into being in a miraculous way.”
“This is reductionism. It reduces the matter to biology, physics and chemistry and says: ‘If our behaviours are controlled by the laws of science, then, it is difficult to understand how the freewill is used. Then, it is seen that, we are not anything more than biological machines and free will is just an illusion”. Whereas if this were true, then, wouldn’t what we talk and what we write be nothing more than like the automatic actions of a robot?”
“Therefore, anybody advocating deterministic theories should reject the contributions he or she has done in his/her area of activity. Hawking is also included in that.
The Intermediary Note of the Writer of the Explanatory Text on Determinism: Determinism is the doctrine which claims that the universe or events in the universe or all objects and events that can be the subject of a science are previously determined and they take place under the effect of the laws and forces necessitating them to be as they are.
“The reason for my objection to the type of atheism that Hawking embedded in his book entitled Grand Design” does not stem from my being a Christian but rather from my belief in science. And it seems to me that their reductionist arguments sabotage the principle of the credibility of logic which all scientists believe in as the basic requirement to be able to make science.”
Dr. John Lennox finishes his speech with the following words: “And if I have two different explanations for the existence of the universe before me and if one of them says that my logic is nothing more than my brain and my brain is the result of a mindless and reinless process; my belief in the formation of my brain, which is itself a means of research and information, with a mindless and reinless process would be an obvious irrationality. The reductionist atheism of current of New Atheism sabotages the logic over which we do science. In other words, what they say is meaningless in accordance with their own theory. The claim that the reason why we can do science and why my small mind could understand this universe in the least, is Grand Design, that is the Creator, is more logical for me.”
Now, we will present you with what Steven Weinberg, a Nobel winning physicist said in an interview, made by the proponent of atheism Richard Dawkins, about the trueness of the theory of multiple universes and on the ideas that one day in the future, the apparently fixed laws in the universe and the sensitive structure there will be explained with “The Theory of Everything”, and that especially after this “big discovery”, it will come to light that there is nothing in the universe which can be called as fine-tuning.
“You should not underestimate the apparently fixed laws in the universe and its sensitive structure. Besides, there is no such a guarantee that, one day everything will be explained by “The Theory of Everything.” We will learn about some laws of nature but we will not be able to represent the universe, where we are living, mathematically, because we know that mathematical laws and data can’t describe the universe that we know. We will be facing questions continuously. For example, why is the existence of some laws dependent on the existence of others? In fact, I couldn’t find a way out. The fixed/stable and sensitive structure of the universe, which is very suitable to this life, seems clearly correct. Besides, the theory of multiple universes is nothing more than a claim for which there is no evidence. If we present such a claim as if it is scientific, then we would be making speculation. Moreover, in order to make human life possible, the numbers of universes should be so high. In fact, it should be 1056 at least. If you think you have some information about fluctuation, you should say 10120 at least. In fact, this is somewhat confusing.
The words of Weinberger are remarkable. But, why should it be confusing to make conclusions from this data? In fact, it is not confusing at all. What does it mean to accept the existing of 10120 universes in addition to the existing one instead of accepting the existence of the Creator? This number means this: in the universe, the total number of atoms is 1078. If we put 1 trillion, that is 1012, zeros next to it; this makes up: 1078*1012=1090. Still this is an unbelievably smaller number than 10120. In other words, by accepting this, you have to accept without any evidence the existence of such a big number of universes, which is much bigger than the number you reach when you add 1 trillion zeros over each atom in the universe.
 Speculation: Reaching to a conclusion on an issue without making use of any evidence.
If you feel that you have to reject the existence of a creator or if you condition yourself in this direction, then you find yourself blocked in a dead street. We want to say, “Well done!” to such a person who has this thinking. What would he say if he had seen the creator; “I did not accept you but this thing?” Would his words be accepted? All we can say is “May Allah show him the right path” for a person who thinks seriously that the realization of this probability is possible. Nobody should be offended by our interpretation in such a situation.
However, there are just two options to explain the stable/constant laws and the delicate balance apparent in nature. Either the existence of the creator, which Richard Dawkins and other atheists are disturbed even thinking of, will be accepted. Or, the existence of 10120 universes, for whose existence there is not any evidence, or even if there is¸ there is confusing evidence. For Allah’s sake! Why making such a decision is difficult?
Is the difficulty only related to the being logical to the undesired option which is the existence of a creator? Is it more appropriate and more suitable with scientific thinking? Or is this difficulty related with that the probability of the desired option, that is creation based on coincidence, is low, almost impossible, and that even the advocates of this thinking, who advocate it feverishly, have difficulty in obtaining the approval of their logic for the realization of such a probability? In conclusion, at this point we can easily say that the insistence of the scientists, who are proponents of the atheistic thinking, in believing in this superstition, makes the idea of the existence of a single creator even stronger.