# Kirk Cameron schools Stephen Hawking in science **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 22, 2011, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818 "2011-05-22T21:45:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/201 "2011-05-23T23:39:56Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > What possible use could tits be to spaghetti or navigation? When was the last time you heard somebody “I’d love some tits and pasta”? I wish you she’ites would think it through. Every Wednesday night. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/202 "2011-05-23T23:51:26Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > “I don’t know” _is_ better than “false explanations X Y and Z”. > > Look, this is the disconnect we have here. Scientists fill their “holes” (i.e. the gaps in their knowledge) with “I don’t know”. It’s an honest answer, and it’s easy to replace when we figure the problem out. I don’t know is an honest placeholder for when we find a good answer. > > The religious fill their holes with “God did it”. It’s _not_ an honest answer, it’s _not_ easy to replace when we do figure the problem out (see also: creationism vs. evolution; that debate should’ve ended back in the early 1900s but it’s still raging on!). God did it is not a placeholder; it’s a dishonest answer that will not go away when we find the _right_ answer. That was incredibly well stated. \ ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/203 "2011-05-24T00:16:00Z")
Miller: > [@](#): > > Hawking, at least in the linked article, isn’t talking about the origins of the universe. He’s talking about the concept of life after death. So Kirk does not actually score a point, because he’s not addressing the question under debate. Dude, WTF? In the interview in the Guardian that Cameron is responding to, Hawking answers only five questions. One of those is about the origin of the universe. The article about his lectures that prompted the interview is about the origin of the universe. The reason why Hawking thinks that there is no afterlife, is because there is no God, because no God is required to create the universe. Read the interview. Absolutely the origin of the universe is fair play at this debate between the two. **That’s** really the central argument here. How can you ignore this context? > **[Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven; it's a fairy story'](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/may/15/stephen-hawking-interview-there-is-no-heaven)** > > In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, the cosmologist shares his thoughts on death, M-theory, human purpose and our chance existence Anyway, consider yourself chastised and corrected. Let’s move on. > [@](#): > > Also, simply offering an idea is not valuable in and of itself, unless you can provide evidence for the idea. Cameron does not have any evidence that God created the universe (well, he thinks he does, but that’s a different pit rant). I, also, do not have any evidence for what created the universe, which is why I’m not offering an opinion on what created the universe. Keeping your mouth shut when you don’t know anything is a virtue, not a vice. Again, some ancient, unknowable, all encompassing, vast force creates the universe out of total nothingness… and we can’t call that “God?” Who’s being obstinate? > [@](#): > > This is wrong on so many levels. The first one is that it’s a pure tautology. If you define “God” as “the origin of the universe,” and the only evidence that you have for his existence is that there this universe lying about, then you haven’t explained anything. You’ve merely observed that the universe must have a start point, and arbitrarily assigned the label “God.” I see that you’ve described my argument. You neglected to talk about what is wrong with it “on so many levels.” It seems like a good thing to me. We’ve defined a concept and now we can start assigning properties to it, and hypothesizing about and try to figure out what it’s like. > [@](#): > > Second, while creating a universe is a pretty neat trick, it’s far from evidence of omnipotence. Not “A” universe, “The” Universe. Creating the universe is totally fucking omnipotent, if you think through the implications. Of course remaining omnipotent after creating a universe is problematic. > [@](#): > > The universe is made up of hundreds of rules that appear to be inviolate: we call these rules “physics.” Nothing in the universe can violate these laws - in fact, it is the constraints of these laws that cause the universe to have the form that it does. Again, you got this all wrong. Even Hawking disagrees with you. You seem to be under the impression that the laws of physics exist separately and inviolately from the universe, as if they were somehow just floating around before the big bang, waiting for the universe to start, so they could act on the universe. That’s just not the case. The laws of physics are a part of the universe. There is not any necessary reason why they are the way they are. They could be otherwise in another universe. The speed of light just happened to be 186,000 miles per second, Pi just happened to be 3.14…, girls just want to have fun, etc, etc. Any of these things could have been different. To quote Hawking: “Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in.” > [@](#): > > If, as you suggest, we define God as “the originator of the universe,” all the evidence we have at hand indicates that these laws bind God as much as they bind his creation - which means he is not, in fact, omnipotent, just very, very powerful. I never really understood this hangup people have with the “Could God make a rock he couldn’t lift,” problem: Omnipotent God creates universe and creates laws of physics that are inviolate even to him. Why is that a problem? If you are omnipotent, being able to give up your omnipotence is something you would have to be able to do otherwise you wouldn’t be omnipotent, right? Maybe there’s something like that in the Bible with God making himself man in Jesus. Personally, that’s the tough way to go. When I create universes and give up my omnipotence, I simply make the laws of physics expire eventually and change so that my omnipotence eventually reverts back to me, so, I’m only temporarily without my omnipotence. > [@](#): > > Lastly, Cameron is not defining God as “the origin of the universe.” He’s defining God as the God of the Isrealites, father of Jesus Christ, direct revelator of the Holy Bible, and the guy who invented the banana. You can’t separate out one aspect of his claim, ignore everything else about it, and say that it’s a good argument. The whole thing comes as a package - either the universe was created in six days by a large bearded man who lives on a cloud, or Cameron is full of shit. Hmmmmm. Smells like bullshit to me kemosabe. By what law do I have to accept either everything somebody says, or nothing? Why can’t I pick the parts that are right and disregard the rest? This is a depressingly simplistic false dilemma for someone of your stature. > [@](#): > > I could be mistaken, but I strongly suspect that Hawking has, indeed, addressed the question of what instigated the Big Bang, and what existed before that point. His thoughts on that question aren’t included in this article, because (as noted earlier) this article isn’t about what Stephen Hawking thinks happened before the Big Bang. It’s about what Stephen Hawking thinks happens after you die. Your being narrow, and ridiculously context free in this assessment. Cameron is responding to the Guardian article, which is much more about the origin of the universe than it is about life after death. It seems to me that life after death is the throwaway in this argument, just a way of getting to the first cause. Anyway the origin of the universe is what Hawking’s book is about, what his lecture is about what the article is about and what Cameron is responding, so I think it’s fair game. FTR, Hawking thinks the origin of the universe is the same force that was his big success with black holes. I.E. Virtual pairs are spontaneously created and almost instantly annihilate themselves all the time everywhere. Hawking figured that if this was true than some pairs would create on the event horizon of black holes, where one was beneath and the other was above and they would not annihilate each other. The remaining pairs on this side of the event horizon would emit a detectable radiation. The ones on the other side would “evaporate” the black hole. This radiation was detected thus proving Hawking’s theory. Hawking believes the entire universe self actualized within it’s own singularity and mostly virtually annhiliated in just this fashion during the big bang. Now you might rightly think that there is a big difference between infinitessimal virtual particles and big bangs, but Hawking says nope, no difference at all. Sounds cool and all, but it’s still something from nothing, self-creation, and a pretty fucking godlike event in my book. > [@](#): > > Neither does making up shit without evidence. In fact, it tends to get you farther away from the correct answer, because you tend to look only for evidence that supports your preconceptions, and ignore evidence that contradicts it. It can be that way, but it doesn’t have to be that way. Newtonian physics are all wrong, but they led us to relativity and quantum theory (these may also be wrong, but there moving us closer.) This is the way science works. We take a guess, and keep replacing it with better guesses. In the case of the question of the origin of the universe. Science really hasn’t advanced things beyond the concept that an agent or process (Call it God, or Fred, or the IPU) created the universe out of nothing, AAAANNNNDDDD, It seems pretty petulant about insisting this is not God. [quoteCameron would disagree vehemently that the universe contains all things. His definition of God revolves on the concept that God is not of or within the universe. He exists outside of it entirely.[/quote] I don’t think Cameron thinks that. Anyway, your putting words in his mouth and guessing what he would say. I don’t know you expect me to respond other than to say I don’t guess that Cameron would have a problem with God being in the universe to some degree. I think he would think that God is everywhere and contains all things. That’s just my guess. > [@](#): > > Hawking would disagree that the universe contains all possibilities. For one thing, there are a huge number of things that are flatly impossible under the laws of physics as we understand them. The speed of light being a hard limit is just one of them. Further, there are things that, while technically possible, are so statistically remote that they will never, under any circumstances, come to pass, even in an infinite universe. Again, you are trying to speak for Hawking, which is not good. But again, the laws of physics were created along with the universe. They could have been other values. > [@](#): > > Your statement also fails as a synthesis of these two arguments. Hawking views the creation of the universe as a function of the universe itself. Cameron views the creation of the universe as an act of will by a being that exists outside of the universe. No amount of label switching will ever force these two views into congruence. I don’t think that’s what Hawking thinks, and I think I have a pretty good grasp on his theory. I think Hawking thinks a universe simply must occur, but not because of itself. In terms of what Cameron thinks, I’m not going there. Probably some of your faulty logic in this thread is a function of trying to think like Kirk Cameron. It must have temporarily damaged your brain and thinking. Hopefully you are ok now. I’m just pointing out that Cameron said something that actually made some kind of sense and was therefore notable, sort of the way a broken clock is occasionally right, and blind dogs might still find bones once in a while. Lord help me, I’m not going to get into what he thinks! That way lies madness. [quoteNonsense. The fundamentalist Christian response faces exactly the same problem you ascribe to the Big Bang theory: the creation of nothing out of nothing. If an omnipotent creator deity creating himself out of nothing is a satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of the universe, then the Big Bang exploding out of nothingness is an equally valid answer. If the Big Bang’s self creation is an insufficient answer, then the creator deity’s self creation as an act of will is equally insufficient.[/quote] You say Tomato, I say Tomato (that doesn’t really work when you write it out, does it?) anyhow, Big Bang, God, same difference in my book. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/204 "2011-05-24T00:19:37Z")
This just in, Scylla clearly of subnormal intellect. When asked for comment the embattled poster replied, “_Herp-Derp_”. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/205 "2011-05-24T00:32:19Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > That was incredibly well stated. \ Except that it is total fucking bullshit. Science never says “I don’t know.” (Well maybe some scientist sometime said that, but it’s damn rare.) Scientific history is the march of really bad ideas being stated as a certainty eventually getting replace with other (usually pretty bad,) ideas. Bodily Humors, the Aether, the flat world, Newtonian physics, Dark matter, etc. etc. Every fucking idea we ever had in our entire history up till now basically turned out to be wrong and got replaced by an idea that was only slightly less bad. You think science says “I Don’t know?” Are you insane? How much do you think we actually know? Do you think is true now is going to hold up? Do you think it’s that much better than “God?” I don’t think that we are much better than the surgeon applying leeches while sneering at a witch doctor mumbling an incantation. If history is any indicator, pretty much everything that we think is a fact is going to get replaced by another idea which is going to be a better fact. Our ideas of what is true are likely very poor. We don’t know shit. We never admit it. Never have, never will. Find me one scientific journal with an article all about stuff that the writer doesn’t know. What is it you think we actually know for sure? Absolutely ridiculous. Why would you applaud such a stupidly false statement? Science never says it doesn’t know. It cuts birds hearts out and spreads them on goiters as a cure. It poisons my father and kills him before the cancer can and calls it a cure. I don’t know almost never happens and it never has any value. Taking your best fucking swing at it and offering the best explanation you can is all that you can do. “I don’t Know.” is for douchebags and extinct hominids. Hawking agrees with me: “But science tells us that we can’t solve the equations, directly in the abstract. We need to use the effective theory of Darwinian natural selection of those societies most likely to survive. We assign them higher value.” ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/206 "2011-05-24T00:32:56Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > This just in, Scylla clearly of subnormal intellect. When asked for comment the embattled poster replied, “_Herp-Derp_”. This just in: Lobohan mistakes disagreement for stupidity. In other news, sky still blue. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/207 "2011-05-24T00:34:24Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > This just in, Scylla clearly of subnormal intellect. When asked for comment the embattled poster replied, “_Herp-Derp_”. Must be. I don’t get it. Are you insulting me, defending me, trolling, or making a funny? ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/208 "2011-05-24T00:39:08Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Hawking would disagree that the universe contains all possibilities. For one thing, there are a huge number of things that are flatly impossible under the laws of physics as we understand them. The speed of light being a hard limit is just one of them. Further, there are things that, while technically possible, are so statistically remote that they will never, under any circumstances, come to pass, even in an infinite universe. From Hawkings last book, I think that he believes in multiple universes and that laws of physics and physical constants may be different in them. Some of those universes collapsed almost immediately after the big bang because the conditions were not right for an expanding universe. One of them had initial conditions that led to our universe. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/209 "2011-05-24T00:44:49Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > That was incredibly well stated. \ No. It’s so fucking bad. I’ll give you another example. I am science. I am staring at an electric fence. A guy walks up to me and says “Hey, science. is that fence on?” I say “Nope. Definitely not.” The guy says “Oh, cool,” and grabs the fence. We learn something from what happens next. In this case a bad answer is just as good as a good answer. We find something out either way. If, on the other hand, as science, I say “I don’t know,” to the electric fence question than the guy doesn’t grab the fence and we just stand there not knowing, right? “I don’t know” is a bullshit, stupid answer. It is not scientist. Science’s motto is “Often wrong. Seldom in doubt.” ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/210 "2011-05-24T00:45:51Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > This just in: Lobohan mistakes disagreement for stupidity. In other news, sky still blue. I’m okay with disagreement. However, anyone who thinks that _there must be a God because the universe is here_ isn’t disagreeing with me. He’s not understanding how to think. Disagreements are about contested facts or opinions. Not about fundamental flaws in logic. Calling the laws of physics, “God” is simply stupid if you use it to defend the sentient all-father that commands Semites to rip their dick-cozies off. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/211 "2011-05-24T00:47:26Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > No. It’s so fucking bad. I’ll give you another example. Jesus fuck you’re terrible at this. ETA: Wait, I understand now. You’re taking the piss, Mr. Deadpan. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/212 "2011-05-24T00:48:30Z")
I never thought the blimp thread was really all that funny. And I would like Scylla to explain to me how Kirk Cameron saying “god did it,” in any way leads us towards a right answer. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/213 "2011-05-24T00:51:33Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Must be. I don’t get it. Are you insulting me, defending me, trolling, or making a funny? Yes, no, no and yes. > [@Scylla](#): > > No. It’s so fucking bad. I’ll give you another example. > I am science. I am staring at an electric fence. A guy walks up to me and says “Hey, science. is that fence on?” > > I say “Nope. Definitely not.” > > The guy says “Oh, cool,” and grabs the fence. We learn something from what happens next. In this case a bad answer is just as good as a good answer. We find something out either way. > If, on the other hand, as science, I say “I don’t know,” to the electric fence question than the guy doesn’t grab the fence and we just stand there not knowing, right? > “I don’t know” is a bullshit, stupid answer. It is not scientist. > > Science’s motto is “Often wrong. Seldom in doubt.” You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. Although you could just be acting like a retard to commiserate with the theists I suppose. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/214 "2011-05-24T00:57:25Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I’m okay with disagreement. However, anyone who thinks that _there must be a God because the universe is here_ isn’t disagreeing with me. He’s not understanding how to think. I really can’t explain Seinfeld to my dog. He’s just not going to get it. There’s a lot of that in talking to you. You are just not at the level necessary to grasp the issue, are you? I will try one more time, exercise futility and tilt at a windmill. Here goes: > [@](#): > > Disagreements are about contested facts or opinions. Not about fundamental flaws in logic. Calling the laws of physics, “God” is simply stupid if you use it to defend the sentient all-father that commands Semites to rip their dick-cozies off. Why on earth would you choose that definition? There are tons and tons of different religions with different concepts of what God is and what God does. You just chose the Dick Cozie one and assigned it to me? Why that one? Do you think because that concept of God is silly, amusing, and nonsensical to you, that therefore all concepts of God must be silly, amusing and nonsensical? By that same logic medicine is ridiculous and dismissible because it said applying leeches is a cure all. Do you dismiss all concepts of medicine because some of its concepts are silly and fanciful? * * * You do this, you think like this and you compare yourself to me? You comment on my intelligence and logic? Things I do probably look pretty stupid to my dog, but that’s because he’s a fucking dog, and he doesn’t have the mental horsepower to get it. My dog though is smarter than you in that he knows his betters. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/215 "2011-05-24T01:11:34Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I really can’t explain Seinfeld to my dog. He’s just not going to get it. There’s a lot of that in talking to you. You are just not at the level necessary to grasp the issue, are you? Try me, Chester. > [@](#): > > I will try one more time, exercise futility and tilt at a windmill. Here goes: > > Why on earth would you choose that definition? There are tons and tons of different religions with different concepts of what God is and what God does. You just chose the Dick Cozie one and assigned it to me? Why that one? > > Do you think because that concept of God is silly, amusing, and nonsensical to you, that therefore all concepts of God must be silly, amusing and nonsensical? An intelligent being coming into existence out of nothing in one go is pretty nonsensical. If you’re suggesting that you’re using the term “God” for a non-intelligent force you’re not using it properly. If you’re just using “God” as a metaphor for the laws of physics, why not just call it physics? A metaphorical non-intelligent physics as God isn’t a defense of theism. At all. Not even a little. And if you weren’t profoundly dense you’d likely understand that. > [@](#): > > By that same logic medicine is ridiculous and dismissible because it said applying leeches > is a cure all. No it isn’t. Medicine has adapted and improved over time. The pre-scientific medicine was based on stupidity, like religion. Leeches weren’t scientific medicine. They were an attempt to moderate humors based on an unscientific (read as religion-like) bullshit attempt to understand the body without intelligently trying to understand it. > [@](#): > > Do you dismiss all concepts of medicine because some of its concepts are silly and fanciful? See above. > [@](#): > > * * * Shitting dick nipples. > [@](#): > > You do this, you think like this and you compare yourself to me? You comment on my intelligence and logic? Because you believe in drivel. You are a mental failure and unable to think cogently think about things you believe in. > [@](#): > > Things I do probably look pretty stupid to my dog, but that’s because he’s a fucking dog, and he doesn’t have the mental horsepower to get it. > > My dog though is smarter than you in that he knows his betters. Your dog loves you. So I guess there is no accounting for taste. ---
**Author:** ![Snarky\_Kong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Snarky\_Kong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snarky_Kong)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/216 "2011-05-24T01:12:53Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > No. It’s so fucking bad. I’ll give you another example. > I am science. I am staring at an electric fence. A guy walks up to me and says “Hey, science. is that fence on?” > > I say “Nope. Definitely not.” > > The guy says “Oh, cool,” and grabs the fence. We learn something from what happens next. In this case a bad answer is just as good as a good answer. We find something out either way. > If, on the other hand, as science, I say “I don’t know,” to the electric fence question than the guy doesn’t grab the fence and we just stand there not knowing, right? > “I don’t know” is a bullshit, stupid answer. It is not scientist. > > Science’s motto is “Often wrong. Seldom in doubt.” You’re either trolling or the dumbest motherfucker alive. Nobody ever says “I don’t know, lets find out?” ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/217 "2011-05-24T01:14:23Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > …You say Tomato, I say Tomato (that doesn’t really work when you write it out, does it?)… Try it this way: “You say toe-MAY-toe, I say toe-MAH-toe…” Works just fine, written out that way, I think. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/218 "2011-05-24T01:18:26Z")
> [@Snarky\_Kong](#): > > You’re either trolling or the dumbest motherfucker alive. > > Nobody ever says “I don’t know, lets find out?” That seems to be _all_ I do! “I don’t know” is a scientist’s favorite line. “Why did that experiment come out that way? I don’t know!” And then the fun begins. Plus wandering around with data asking people to tell me why my conclusion must be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/219 "2011-05-24T01:31:44Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > An intelligent being coming into existence out of nothing in one go is pretty nonsensical. If you’re suggesting that you’re using the term “God” for a non-intelligent force you’re not using it properly. If you’re just using “God” as a metaphor for the laws of physics, why not just call it physics? I defined God as the creator of the universe imbued with omnipotence. I didn’t say anything about intelligence. Why do we need that? You think any concept of God worthy of the name needs or posesses something recognizable to us as intelligence? That might be like saying your spaceship needs to be pulled by a horse. So, if you think God needs intelligence, you are going to need to tell me why. No. I’m not using God as a metaphor. The laws of physics are not a precursor to the universe, they are a part of it. They were created with it. > [@](#): > > A metaphorical non-intelligent physics as God isn’t a defense of theism. At all. Not even a little. And if you weren’t profoundly dense you’d likely understand that. It’s like the Seinfeld dog thing. That’s not what I’m saying. I don’t think you have the intellectual precursors to get what I’m saying. > [@](#): > > No it isn’t. Medicine has adapted and improved over time. The pre-scientific medicine was based on stupidity, like religion. Leeches weren’t scientific medicine. They were an attempt to moderate humors based on an unscientific (read as religion-like) bullshit attempt to understand the body without intelligently trying to understand it. Oh, leeches were science. They just got replaced by something better. Bad science is still science. Newtonian physics aren’t correct, either, you know? Nor was Newton’s concept of the aether as the medium for action at a distance. It was a wrong idea that an immense scientific treatment… as were leeches and the concept of humors. They are attempts to explain the observed world. Thinking leeches weren’t scientific medicine is just stupid. If you don’t get that, you are really just too ignorant to be here. What makes you think that theology doesn’t improve? You ever hear of somebody called Thomas Aquinas? You realize that science that western science and the scientific method was directly spawned out of attempts to systematize theological thinking, right? You telling me that a concept of God is talking about the grey haired dude telling me to cut my penis tip is that me telling you that medicine is talking about leeches, right? * * * I fear you don’t get this. I think you are kind of at this absolutist stage that thinks something is either all right, or all wrong and there is not much room for any subtlety in that 25 watt bulb of yours. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/220 "2011-05-24T01:38:36Z")
> [@Snarky\_Kong](#): > > You’re either trolling or the dumbest motherfucker alive. > > Nobody ever says “I don’t know, lets find out?” Well, he did actually say “Everybody say it’s [del]torture[/del] bad, but _I_ don’t know, so lets find out?”. For those that don’t remember, [I [del]Robot[/del] waterboard!](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=448717) CMC fnord! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818.md?page=12)