God and Stephen Hawking (John Lennox refutes “The Grand Design”)


I was reading an excellent article this morning by Dr. John Lennox, professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, refuting the concepts contained in Dr. Stephen Hawking‘s book, The Grand Design. The article was contained in Dr. Ravi Zacharias‘ fine publication, Just Thinking.


Having read Stephen Hawking’s book, I thought John Lennox put into words what I would say about this book myself. This is not a book of hard science, as Dr. Hawking would have us believe, but rather a book of Philosophy (which Dr. Hawking ironically seems to feel is now useless) and Metaphysics. Far from giving us a definite Scientific explanation for how the universe created itself through the laws of physics (the book’s stated goal), it hypothesizes about many non-proven theories that are really speculative science-fiction, rather than observable science.

John Lennox demonstrates how the existence of the laws of Physics (Gravity for example) do NOT disprove the existence of God (as Stephen Hawking claims), but are rather evidence for Him. I am thankful for brilliant scholars like Dr. Lennox who are willing to challenge the intellectual elite and expose when they are merely promoting a presuppositional bias, rather than doing real Science.

I would also encourage you to watch this lecture by Dr. Lennox where he explains his objections to this book in more detail.

Israel Wayne is an Author and  Conference Speaker. He is the Director of Family Renewal, LLC and Site Editor for www.ChristianWorldview.net.

5 Responses to “God and Stephen Hawking (John Lennox refutes “The Grand Design”)”

  1. Hawking is good at math and physics, but is (in my opinion) overeager to use his ideas to disprove the notion of or need for God. In “A Brief History of Time,” he argued that a spherical space-time made the “Big Bang” just a pole on a sphere instead of evidence for a Creator. What he failed to note is that the EXISTENCE of space-time is the EVIDENCE for a Creator, not a “starting point” in time itself. In the same way, his new “brane theory” offers a physical way of responding to the ENORMOUS odds against life appearing by chance… but it still falls well short of a satisfying explanation of the existence of the order we see around us.

  2. Udaybhanu Chitrakar says:

    In olden-golden days the saying was: When there was nothing, there was God. When there will be nothing again, there will still be God.
    But then came the scientists and changed everything. The above saying also changed to this: When there was nothing, there were quantum laws. When there will be nothing again, there will still be quantum laws.
    These quantum laws are spaceless, timeless, changeless, eternal, all-pervading, unborn, uncreated and immaterial. Only that these laws lack consciousness.
    These quantum laws are spaceless, timeless and immaterial, because when there was no space, no time and no matter, there were still these quantum laws. (Vilenkin’s model)
    These quantum laws are all-pervading, because these laws act equally everywhere.
    Quantum laws are scientists’ God.

  3. Dr.H.Davis says:

    Scientists speak of evolution as though it is segregated from the Big Bang!
    The BB as given is chaos yet they teach evolution has progressed in creative/complex forms to the animals,birds,etc.,including man we see today!
    How can an overt Chaos or the BB have all of the normative forms needed to produce the intensely,intricate complicated life forms we see today?
    It makes no sense.Imagine all life forms coming from an intense vast explosion-and all of the trillions and trillions of microscopic elements eventually forming all of life on this planet- and the planet itself!!!This takes more faith than pharmacetical co.has pills!

  4. oaktree says:

    Quantum Physics isn’t eternal. It too has a beginning. God is eternal.

  5. Jason Bray says:

    One point to use if this comes up in discussion about which we should all be clear:

    Laws of Physics are not anything in and of themselves. They are merely a mathematical description of the behavior of physical objects. To speak of the ‘laws’ as though they are independent objects that can exist before they have things to describe is to misunderstand the nature of physical law to the utmost extent.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

© Israel Wayne.