America’s Founding in the Ron Paul Curriculum? »« Ellis Washington Comes to Scalia’s Rescue

Kirk Cameron vs Stephen Hawking

Kirk Cameron, the intellectually stunted former child actor who has spent most of his life after Growing Pains was canceled making the world fondly reminisce about the deep and thoughtful dialogue on that show, just may have bitten off a bit more than he can chew by criticizing Stephen Hawking:

“There is no heaven or afterlife for broken-down computers,” Hawking said of the human brain to the Guardian newspaper Monday. “That is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.”

Cameron, a Christian evangelist who heads the online ministry, Way of the Master, responded on his Facebook page Wednesday, writing that “to say anything negative about Stephen Hawking is like bullying a blind man. He has an unfair disadvantage, and that gives him a free pass on some of his absurd ideas.” Hawking suffers from a motor neurone disease that has left him totally paralyzed.

“Professor Hawking is heralded as ‘the genius of Britain,’ yet he believes in the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything and that life sprang from non-life,” the actor continued.

Uh, Kirk…you may be punching way above your weight class here. You should pick on someone of your own intellect. I’d start with a box of hammers.

Comments

  1. blf says

    He’d first have to figure out how to open the box.

    Nah, that’s wrong. He’d first have to realize a box can be opened.

  2. teawithbertrand says

    I remember an apt description of the last time Kirk traded words with Professor Hawking:

    “Kirk Cameron is to Stephen Hawking as mayonnaise is to…Stephen Hawking.”

  3. says

    We once had a tiny dog on our dairy farm who had no conception of relative sizes. He’d run up to great big canines growling and yapping and nipping at them, determined to demonstrate that he, teensy tiny dog, was king of the farmyard. Did he come to a terrible gory end with one snap of a big dog’s jaws. Nope. They just ignored him. We should have named him “Kirk.”

  4. says

    …yet he believes in the scientific impossibility…

    Kirk Cameron can’t even sum up the epistemology of science, let alone the methodology. Why do folks who are completely ignorant of a subject believe they are the ones best equipped to proclaim loudly on that subject?

  5. OverlappingMagisteria says

    Today I learned that my memory for stupid things that Kirk Cameron says has a retention of at least 2 years. Which is probably about 2 years too much.

    (In other words: This article is from May 19th 2011.)

  6. kraut says

    “and that life sprang from non-life”

    That is actually how god created in the bible – magic, poof.
    The question still is: How poofed god into life? I stick with quantum fluctuations of within Planck space.

  7. glodson says

    He thinks that Hawking’s condition makes people less apt to criticize Hawking?

    What an asshole.

  8. frankb says

    the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything and that life sprang from non-life

    Here is the perfectly healthy man with way less thinking power than a paralyzed man. He thinks his invisible friend created everything from nothing and made life from non-life. Kirk gave this his best shot and he is proud of himself. The yapping of small dogs indeed.

  9. NVSkeptic says

    Kirk reminds me of the hamster in Bolt – one of my kids’ movies endlessly played in our minivan. It’s the scene at the end where the hamster’s all pissed off, yelling and attacking a bad guy, then the scene pulls back and you see the hamster in the ball harmlessly rolling into the guy’s shoe and all you hear is “squeak, squeak”.

    And that’s what I hear when Cameron talks… “squeak, squeak”.

  10. Chiroptera says

    He has an unfair disadvantage, and that gives him a free pass on some of his absurd ideas.

    To be fair, Hawking probably feels the same way about Cameron.

  11. says

    Is a box of hammers dumber than a bag of hammers? Somehow the latter seems dumber to me because hauling a bunch of hammers around in a bag is a pretty half-assed way to transport hammers.

    Clearly I’ve invested too much thought in this.

  12. says

    Cameron forgot the fact that god gave Hawking his affliction in order to (mumble something) ineffable. Hawking isn’t disabled: he’s a cyborg supermassive black hole ninja.

  13. Doug Little says

    “Professor Hawking is heralded as ‘the genius of Britain,’ yet he believes in the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything and that life sprang from non-life,” the actor continued.

    Hmmmm, I wonder who has put more thought into it and is more qualified to comment on what is scientifically possible.

  14. iainuk says

    The problem with comparing Kirk Cameron to a box of hammers is that hammers have heads so it is being unfair. How about a box of nails? No wait, nails have heads as well, silly me. Pins? No they have heads, pinheads yes but still heads. What a minute, I’ll get in a minute……..

    Of course, there’s always bananas, they don’t have heads. But then Kirk is completely bananas anyway and real bananas are evolved.

    OK I give up. What’s completely headless and can be fairly compared with Kirk Cameron?

  15. Sastra says

    iainuk #26 wrote:

    OK I give up. What’s completely headless and can be fairly compared with Kirk Cameron?

    Ray Comfort?

  16. says

    What’s completely headless and can be fairly compared with Kirk Cameron?

    A rock.

    Large rocks, however, may be smarter than Cameron. I’d say he’s probably at about the level of a bucketful of gravel, less the bucket.

  17. dingojack says

    Nah, Ray Ray has a head – it’s just that it’s usually stored in his lower gastrointestinal tract.

    :) Dingo

  18. says

    The big problem I think they have with abiogenesis is that they can’t grasp the idea that life is essentially an abstraction or emergent concept, not a concrete, irreducible thing. They’re vitalists performing a fallacy of composition. They think life is made of irreducible life.

    In reality, life is made of “non-life” chemical reactions. These reactions are not alive themselves but when put together in a larger context, they produce what we call “life.” A car is made of “non-car” components, but a car is more than “just” a collection of mechanical parts: Those parts are joined together in a form we describe as “car,” which collectively has functions the individual parts lack.

    To me, it just seems like they can’t grasp that parts add up to wholes. They’re hyper-reductionists, unable to comprehend abstraction and emergence.

  19. slc1 says

    Re Bronze Dog @ #23

    Another way to put it is that the whole is greater then the sum of its parts.

  20. Sastra says

    Bronze Dog #33 wrote:

    To me, it just seems like they can’t grasp that parts add up to wholes. They’re hyper-reductionists, unable to comprehend abstraction and emergence.

    Exactly. When you reduce religious “explanations” down to the simplest level, they’re all repetitions of the basic principle that Like Can Only Come From Like. And belief in vitalism is always coupled with a belief in mind/body dualism. Just as life must come from Life, mind (and the products of mind) can only come from Mind.

    The explanations then explain nothing. Religion simply tries to shut down the question by re-wording it into an answer. “There is nothing new under the sun” extrapolated into a premise.

  21. cptdoom says

    yet he believes in the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything and that life sprang from non-life

    It is entirely possible for all the matter and energy, including all life and life-sustaining materials, to have sprung from something existing, and potentially alive, without that something being a sentient being who rewards your religious belief with a starring role on a sit-com, or a touchdown in the big game. For instance, if the theory of a multiverse with individual universes existing on -branes that interact with one another, causing various types of big bangs, is accurate, there is no need for the -branes, or the individual universes, to have omniscient, omnipotent and/or omnipresent super beings to be the cause of the interactions. Sort of like earthquakes can build mountains, but the earthquake is not a god.

  22. says

    yet he believes in the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything and that life sprang from non-life

    This is why the exploration of other planets that may support or once might have supported life is so important. If we can see evidence that it happened elsewhere, it can help provide insight into life’s origins.

  23. Michael Heath says

    Ed’s blog post title, Kirk Cameron vs Stephen Hawking.

    Now that’s funny right there. I see no need to read further prior to nominating this post as a worthy blog post of the year candidate.

  24. jnorris says

    iainuk #26 wrote:

    OK I give up. What’s completely headless and can be fairly compared with Kirk Cameron?

    A bag of doorknobs.

  25. marcus says

    Thanks aaronbaker @ 22 You are right!
    From John Scalzi’s Blog
    “Well, Kirk Cameron, here’s the thing. You are correct when you say you should be able to express your moral views on social issues, and as a staunch defender of the First Amendment, I will defend to the death your right to say whatever ridiculous, ignorant and bigoted thing that has been fermenting in that cracked clay pot you call a brain pan. But the First Amendment also means that when you say such things, other people have the a right to mock you and the silly, stupid words that have dribbled out of your skull through that word hole above your chin. If you call someone “unnatural,” they might call you an “asshole.” That’s the deal.”

  26. M, Supreme Anarch of the Queer Illuminati says

    He’d first have to figure out how to open the box.

    Nah, that’s wrong. He’d first have to realize a box can be opened.

    That’s unfair…opening the box is clearly a scientific impossibility.

  27. fastlane says

    Kirk Cameron, the intellectually stunted former child actor[.]

    At least Kirk is one actor that did all his own stunting.

    …I’ll get my coat.

  28. dingojack says

    Are you seriously suggesting that Kirk has the smarts to think outside of the box?!?
    Dingo

  29. birgerjohansson says

    I don’t know what Kirk Cameron looks like, so I picture him as Peter Griffin of “Family Guy”.

  30. Reginald Selkirk says

    “That is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.”

    Apt. I believe Cameron is on the record as stating that his religious conversion was motivated by fear.

  31. slc1 says

    Kirk Cameron going up against Stephen Hawking is like an 8 year old little leaguer going up against Steven Strasburg.

  32. jaybee says

    Laugh all you want, you smug atheists, but Cameron obviously knows something that Hawking doesn’t: the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If only Hawking new about it, I’m sure he’d change his mind. Creationists love science, unlike some god-deniers.

  33. iainuk says

    Laugh all you want, you smug atheists, but Cameron obviously knows something that Hawking doesn’t: the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If only Hawking new about it, I’m sure he’d change his mind. Creationists love science, unlike some god-deniers.

    Oh dear we seem to have attracted a wannbe KC. This one hasn’t a clue about science either.

    Do you actually think that coming onto a blogsite like this and quoting some some science, that you obviously have no understanding of, will NOT be the equivalent of dropping a load of bricks on yourself?

    Simple version of 2nd law: Total amount of energy in universe does not change.
    Total amount of energy at Big Bang: zero
    Total amount of energy now: zero

    See, simple, no problem. Now go away, stop looking at creationist websites, and learn some real science.

    Note to other FtB posters: Yes I KNOW it’s not THAT simple.

  34. jaybee says

    iainuk — that was mockery of the standard creationist argument that evolution is impossible because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I thought the idea that someone would think hawking was unaware of it was so outrageous I didn’t need to broadcast any snark disclaimer.

  35. iainuk says

    iainuk — that was mockery of the standard creationist argument that evolution is impossible because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I thought the idea that someone would think hawking was unaware of it was so outrageous I didn’t need to broadcast any snark disclaimer.

    Oops…….

    It’s late here so my satire radar is not working at full efficiency. Problem with your logic though is that at least one Professor of Thermodynamics DOES think that the 2nd Law refutes evolution. There is no limit to the power of religion to rot one’s critical faculties.

    Plus a real creatard wouldn’t care what Stephen Hawkings knows, it’s such a good argument!!!!!!!

  36. iainuk says

    I’ll need to remember to look to see what people have posted before when I reply to posts.

  37. iainuk says

    Anyway, as we say here in the UK: “It’s goodnight from me and goodnight from him. Goodnight.”

  38. pacal says

    Cameron says:

    Professor Hawking is heralded as ‘the genius of Britain,’ yet he believes in the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything and that life sprang from non-life.

    Uh Cameron you believe that God poofed everything into existence by magic c. 6,000 years ago.

  39. bwells says

    Sorry I’m late guys… What’s this about Alan Thicke’s kid hawking mayonnaise for MC Hammer’s box set?

    I’m against it.

    Geez…. I take one day off….

  40. Stacy says

    @birgerjohansson

    I don’t know what Kirk Cameron looks like, so I picture him as Peter Griffin of “Family Guy”.

    No, no, way off. Picture a cute, disgustingly wholesome-looking teenage star, and age him thirty years. Add a few wrinkles but retain the vacuity. That’s our Kirk.

  41. iainuk says

    Simple version of 2nd law: Total amount of energy in universe does not change.

    Spot the deliberate mistake. This is what I get for posting late at night. The thoughts finally meandered round my head and made the connection at breakfast this morning producing the inevitable AARGH+++ reaction.

  42. says

    NVSkeptic @19: the probelm with your analogy is that the hamster in “Bolt” was much cuter and more honest than Cameron is ever likely to be.

Leave a Reply