Hawking Comes Clean

It's pretty much what George Lematre wrote to the Pope back in the late 1920s.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Yup.The only significant difference I would mention is of course Lematre's profession.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

In a well done study you would not be able to tell the position of the surveyor.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

HUH?If I say that by lowering the temperature of water I can get it to change from a liquid to a solid all on my own with intervention from a god, how is that a metaphysical claim?If there is a full and sufficient explanation for something is there a need to add in additional conditions?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Personally, I might even agree with what you say up to a point. I believe you, kb and even I make metaphysical statements when we speak of GOD, but that does not mean Hawkins did. He simply stated a fact, the fact that no God is needed to explain what is seen.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

And my point is it is only metaphysical to those that might believe in some god. The statement itself is not metaphysical, only certain people consider it as metaphysical.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Of course a statement can be metaphysical or not. It all depends on the pov of the speaker and the listener.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Of course it is a fact.If things can be explained without referring to some god then guess what, no god need apply.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

If the term God has absolutely no meaning, then the statement is not metaphysical, just silly.BUT...that was not what was said.What was said is "No god needed."Totally not a metaphysical statement.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Which is exactly what I have been saying.It is KB's interpretation that makes it a metaphysical statement, not the statement itself,

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Yes let's consider the automobile.Let's see, I find a plate that says Body by Fisher or Ghia or Bertone or Ital Design. I find patent numbers and part numbers and made by stamped on part after part. I find Ford and Chevy and Jaguar and Alfa Romeo and Fiat and Peugeot and Rover and I can bring the designers in, interview them and test them.I can look at the parts, say and engine and tell whether it was cast or machined, original or aftermarket, whether it has been modified.We can look at the product "automobile" tell that not only is it designed but different parts were designed by different people and that similar parts found in other automobiles were designed by yet other folk.In addition, as I pointed out way back in 2006 here:

quote:

---

There is also the fact that the designer is too stupid to adopt good ideas.

​

Consider cars. There are many species or kinds of cars, Packard, Ford, Chevy, Mercedes, Humber, DKW, AutoUnion, Alfa Romeo, Citroen just as there are many kinds of mammals, lions, tigers, bears, man, orangutan, elephant, horse and of course, ohmys.

​

The difference between something designed, like cars, and those things that are not designed like mammals though can be seen in the difference in how good ideas do not propagate through out the living species or kinds.

​

In the early 1920s power windshield wipers appeared on the first car. Within only a few years they were found on every car.

​

In 1923 the first standard equipment radio appeared. Within only a few years they were found on every car.

​

In 1939, Buick introduced turn signals. Within only a few years they were found on every car.

​

The list is almost endless.

​

• electric wipers instead of vacuum.
• internal combustion engines.
• radial tires.
• heaters.
• air conditioning.
• roll down windows.
• headlights.
• mirrors.
• steering wheels.
• tops.
• spare tires.
• space saver spares.
• starters.
• the change from generator to alternator.

​

I could go on but that list should give you an idea.

​

In each instance this was a new feature that first appeared in only one make, sometimes only one model of a car. The designer though took good ideas from one model and applied those same ideas to EVERY model.

​

We do not see that when we look at examples of living critters. The humans brain is not then repeated in all mammals, the eagles eyes are not then repeated in all animals, good features, advances do not get incorporated across all the makes and models, species or kind, of mammals.

​

Looking at living critters what we find is NOT Intelligent Design.

---

What we see in living things and in designed artifacts like automobiles is simply not the same.If when we looked at living things we found the same things we find in designed stuff like automobiles then it might be worth considering if living things were designed.But so far no evidence has come forward supporting living things being designed.Edited by jar, : change sub-title.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!