See:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100902/lf_nm_life/us_britain_hawking

"LONDON (Reuters) – God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book."

I think it is necessary to confess, up front, that I am biased on this issue. I believe God exists, and that HE made the Universe, despite all that Prof. Hawking says. I will read his book with interest, and yes, look for the holes in his arguement.

Good Science implies thorough skepticism. Prof. Hawking will get it full dose from me.

Prof. Hawking has dared to take on a belief that is a foundation for western civilization.While civilized behaviour is always called for, This is not a time to give the professor"a pass", or otherwise some special sympathetic view of his ideas, given that he is sufferingfrom ALS. In regards to his ALS, he does have my very great sympathy. But, read his comments on this: http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/about-stephen/questionsandanswers"Being disabled, or physically challenged, makes no difference to how my scientific colleagues treat me apart from practical matters like waiting while I write what I want to say."

I'd say he expects full bore criticism for all his work. His ideas are fully "up for grabs".
I have proclaimed my bias. in one way, Dr. Hawking has as well (he is a self described agnostic, and more likely an atheist, based on his former wife). However, I must assert that he furtively attempts to shield us from that fact in the name of scientific objectivity.

In other words, I am asserting that Prof. Hawking believes (and wants us to believe), that heis not biased, because he is 'scientific'. His atheism/agnosticism is not borne out of someinternal bias (like mine, as I admit), but is solely based on scientific objectvity. So, we should accept this as objectivy true.

I reject this. I assert that Prof. Hawking is internally biased towards atheism.

Consider his former wife and her comments:
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=577
Among the sources of conflict between them were: religion (she was a believer, he a fervent atheist), his family (described as definitely not nice to her), and his devotion to physics:"I sensed that there was yet another partner lurking in our already overcrowded marriage. The fourth partner first appeared in the form of a trusted and quiescent friend, signalling the way to success and fulfilment for those who followed her. In fact she proved to be a relentless rival, as exacting as any mistress, an inexorable Siren, luring her devotees into deep pools of obsession. She was none other than Physics, cited by Einstein’s first wife as the correspondent in divorce proceedings."
Also from his wife:
"Nor, I have to confess, did the set of scientists with whom Stephen was now associating attract me in the least. On the whole, particle physicists were a dry, obsessive bunch of boffins, little concerned with personal contact but very concerned with their own scientific reputations. They were much more aggressively competitive than the relaxed, friendly relativists with whom we had associated in the past."

Does this really sound like an objective man? Not to me.

So, a biased man, an atheist, is also a very popular physics professor. He has the power of influence.Awarded with the Nobel prize and by the President of the US, no less. If he says it, it will be the TRUTH to many people. It will enter into the lexicon of political jargon, because, after all - the AUTHORITY - Prof. Hawking - the NEW EINSTEIN - our Prophet of the modern age - has spoken. Let us pay homage.....

Prof. Hawking must still conform to the tenets of the Scientific Method. He is not above the Scientific Method.Three axioms presupposed by the scientific method are:- Realism (the existence of objective reality)- The existence of observable natural laws, and - The constancy of observable natural law.

Rather than depend on provability of these axioms, science depends on the fact that they have not been objectively falsified. Occam’s razor and parsimony support, but do not prove these general axioms of science. The general principle of science is that theories (or models) of natural law must be consistent with repeatable experimental observations. This ultimate arbiter (selection criterion) rests upon the axioms mentioned above.

Prof. Hawking claims there are mutiple universes, that ours is only one of many possible permutations ofmany universes.

PROVE IT. SHOW ME. The axiom of Realism FULLY entitles me to ask this question. I can and must expecta totally acceptable answer, or his theory is rejected.
I will have more to say on this, but will defer to later./