I wonder what all those accomodationists will say about this one

Stephen Hawking has a new book coming out next Tuesday, and apparently part of it has him suggesting that when it comes to the creation of the universe, God just wasn't necessary.

This is of course different than saying that he's disproved the existence of God or something like that. But accomodationists like Francis Collins, Fransico Ayala, Kenneth Miller, and... well, the entire Templeton Foundation have long acquiesced to the fact that evolution, driven by the blind processes of survival and reproduction, doesn't require a deity to guide it. So they simply shifted the goalpost and said the universe itself, and its apparent design, is evidence of God's existence.

I've read a number of popular science books on physics including a couple of Hawking's books, and I subscribe to Scientific American, which occasionally features articles on cosmology. Hawking's comments really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who stays abreast of developments in the field, but it will undoubtedly make the accomodationists a little squeamish. No, we can disprove the existence of God. But we can do one better – we can show that God is unnecessary. As I've said many times before: the only thing worse than a god who probably doesn't exist is a god whose existence doesn't matter.


Popular posts from this blog

Why Christianity is bullshit, part 1: The Bible is stupid

Why Christianity is bullshit, part 2: The Bible isn't true

There is no such thing as sophisticated theology