Hawking’s Grand Design – but is it science?

_{David Tyler

November 11, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Stephen Hawking has achieved the status of ‘celebrity scientist’. He writes books that sell well and has both presented and performed in television series. His latest book, The Grand Design, co-authored with Leonard Mlodinow, has been reviewed widely by both popular press and scientific journals. According to Michael Turner, who wrote the Nature review, these authors:

“offer a brief but thrilling account of some of the boldest ideas in physics – including M-theory and the multiverse – and what these have to say about our existence and the nature of the Universe.”

For more, go here.

Blog conclusion: Paradoxically, scientific realism has been used to promote atheism against theism, but Hawking is now leading his band of atheists towards a virtual reality dream-world that is generated by the manipulation of mathematical models. With science developing independently of the empirical world, realism becoming localised and history becoming a construct of observation, post-modernist thinking reigns supreme. Now it is time for theistic realists to quote Sagan’s words with conviction:

“For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” (Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World (1995) Chapter 1)

Comments

Notwithstanding the fact that diferent theories under the proposed M-theory in Hawking’s latest book represent different facets of the same underlying theory i.e., ‘Theory of Everything’, its viability as ‘The Grand Design’ providing mathematical formulism for unification of fundamental forces in nature is highly speculative, with very remote possibility of its being verified expermentally. It may not be out of place to mention that the ‘Big Bang Model’ has alredy failed one of the crucial acid tests for its survival that relates to detection of remnant of gravity waves from the earliest epoch of the universe. Existence of gravitational – wave background, predicted by Einstein in 1916 in his general theory of relativity, is expected from the violent early moments of the Big Bang much like the cosmic microwave background that fills the sky with radio waves from the early universe. While the microwave background originated 380,000 years after the Big Bang, gravitational – wave background purportedly come directly from events in the first minute after the Big Bang. As per Einstein’s prediction, the cataclysmic Big Bang is believed to have created a flood of gravitational waves – ripples in the fabric of space-time that still fill the universe, albeit at a very feeble strength to be discernible by the conventional astronomical tools, and carry information about the universe as it was in the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang. Ironically, the much publicized LIGO experiments, undertaken at whopping sum of over $365 million, for probe of remnant of the gravity waves from the earliest epoch of the universe have so far yielded nothing.ashwini_{November 19, 2010
November
11
Nov
19
19
2010
12:26 AM
12
12
26
AM
PDT}

Hawking appears to have wrongly referred to the ‘Big Bang Model’ as viable explanation for origin of the universe in his latest book, ‘The Grand Design’. The said model suffers from numerous inconsistencies.The review paper titled “Big Bang Model? A Critical Review” published in the peer-reviewed US journal, ‘Journal of Cosmology’, modified version of which is posted at the website: http://vixra.org/pdf/1005.0051v8.pdf ,has detailed prominent inconsistencies with the said model. The persisting redshift controversy that has direct bearing on the expanse and age of the universe as pinpointed by several cosmologists from time to time, presence of full-bloomed galaxies with higher metallicity in the very early epoch of the universe, and the presence of superclusters of galaxies and supervoids in the cosmos are some of the unsolved mysteries that remain inexplicable by the Big Bang model. It is ironic that instead of addressing the existing anomalies with the said model, the mainstream cosmologists have taken it to be a prestige issue by perpetuating the status quo. Ironically, Hawking’s immense popularity as a popular science writer hinges on success of Hawking's widely popular book, ‘A Brief History of Time’ which is all about the origin of the universe. Authencity of the information contained in his book depends on the validity of the ‘Big Bang Model’.When the said model itself in mired in deep controversy, what Hawking has been preaching to the world so far is mere a story without any element of credibility.ashwini_{November 19, 2010
November
11
Nov
19
19
2010
12:25 AM
12
12
25
AM
PDT}

I beg to differ with Stephen Hawking's unfounded remarks in his his latest book, ‘The Grand Design’ that categorically hints at absence of God’s role in creation of the universe.The learned scientist's pronouncement results from his myopic vision about the origins (of life and the universe). He is under false impression that the current knowledge of quantum physics and general theory of relativity alone was sufficient to unearth the mystery regarding origin of life, whereas fact of the matter is, study of origin of life is a multi-disciplinary pursuit involving good understanding of diverse subjects such as such as molecular biology, genetics, and astrobiology besides cosmology.I believe, Dr. Hawking is aware of the complexity of even the simplest creature like ' amoeba dubia ' that has a genome (sequencing of the entire DNA) over 200 times larger than the human genome comprising configuration of around 3 billion nucleotide base pairs. It is ironic that despite considerable advancements in the above cited fields in recent years, science hitherto remains clueless about origin of life. My disagreement with the learned scientist’s claim is further substantiated by the fact that given any number of combinations of the basic building blocks of life viz., amino acids, nucleotide bases, sugar,and phosphate,etc., life has never been created in any of the laboratories the worldover. Life has never emerged from non-life (inanimate matter). This is very much suggestive of the evolution of life having bearing on the existence of some supernatural force, whom we rever as ‘Almighty’ or as ‘God’. Readers may like to refer to the review article “Origin of Life” published in the peer-reviewed European journal, ‘Astrophysics & Space Science’ (2008, Volume 317, Issue 3-4, pp. 267-278), e-print of which is posted at the website: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0907/0907.3552.pdf ,for the latest update on the current status of scientific research in the inter-disciplinary field of ‘origin of life’.ashwini_{November 19, 2010
November
11
Nov
19
19
2010
12:24 AM
12
12
24
AM
PDT}

"I think of the “Grand Design” as speculative hypothesizing. That’s one of the things that scientists do, so it could be called science." I'm pretty sure that scientists also ... hmmm, act like bears in the woods. Should that also be called "science?"Ilion_{November 15, 2010
November
11
Nov
15
15
2010
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT}

allanius @ 2 Nicely put! Neil Rickert @ 3 "I think of the “Grand Design” as speculative hypothesizing. That’s one of the things that scientists do, so it could be called science. However, it is not settled science." I think you are being too generous. Scientists develop hypotheses so that they can test their ideas. Unless there is a way to critically appraise hypotheses, they are properly described as "speculations" or "science fiction". This aspect of Multiverse thinking is entirely absent. We should think of these people as philosophically-minded mathematicians that have constructed virtual cosmologies, whether for fun or for other reasons. deric davidson @ 6 "Is the title “Grand Design” meant to be a sarcastic dig at IDers and theists or simply an unfortunate choice of title?" I interpret it as throwing down the gauntlet to those who find evidence for intelligence in the fine tuning of fundamental physics.David Tyler_{November 15, 2010
November
11
Nov
15
15
2010
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

The trick, however, is to do it in a way that scientists find seriously interesting. So it's not science unless scientists "find it seriously interesting"? So if I find a few guys with degrees and some peer-reviewed research in their academic history who say "I find that seriously interesting", I *am* doing science? Apparently, what is or isn't science is determined by something akin to whim. Everything, ID included, can be science tomorrow if enough scientists just decide "hey, that's interesting." So can last thursdayism. That's a very messed up standard.nullasalus_{November 13, 2010
November
11
Nov
13
13
2010
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

Responding to comment #4 by nullasalus: Yes, indeed, speculating is easy. The trick, however, is to do it in a way that scientists find seriously interesting. And that's a tad more difficult than your examples suggest.Neil Rickert_{November 13, 2010
November
11
Nov
13
13
2010
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

OT: Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig will meet today: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150121049174199&id=1555970603 excerpt: Craig: I am currently in Mexico to participate in a conference called Ciudad de las Ideas, which is a conference modeled on the TED conference in the US. It features lots of high tech people, sociologists, psychologists, economists, scientists, etc. As part of the conference they´re having a panel of six of us debate on the question ¨Does the Universe Have a Purpose?¨ Well. to my surprise, I just found out that one of the three persons on the other side is Richard Dawkins! It´s true! I met him the other night. When he came my way, I stuck out my hand and introduced myself and said, Ï´m surspised to see that you´re on the panel. He replied, Änd why not? I said, ¨Well, you´ve always refused to debate me. His tone suddenly became icy cold. Ï don´t consider this to be a debate with you. The Mexicans invited me to participate, and I accepted.¨ At that, he turned away. ¨Well, I hope we have a good discussion,¨ I said. Ï very much doubt it,¨ he said and walked off. So it was a pretty chilly reception! The debate is Saturday morning, should you think of us. I´ll give an update after I get back.bornagain77_{November 13, 2010
November
11
Nov
13
13
2010
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT}

Is the title "Grand Design" meant to be a sarcastic dig at IDers and theists or simply an unfortunate choice of title?deric davidson_{November 13, 2010
November
11
Nov
13
13
2010
02:24 AM
2
02
24
AM
PDT}

Spontaneous = no cause. Creation = something caused. Spontaneous Creation is a classic oxymoron. It is in fact a contradictory, meaningless nonsense term. Further more in spite of the dictionary definition every "spontaneous" event that I'm aware of is the result of or requires some kind of external stimulation.deric davidson_{November 13, 2010
November
11
Nov
13
13
2010
02:18 AM
2
02
18
AM
PDT}

I think of the “Grand Design” as speculative hypothesizing. That’s one of the things that scientists do, so it could be called science. Cool, I think I'll do some science now. * The universe rests on the backs of an infinite number of stacked turtles. * The turtles came into being via the belch of an colossal pink rabbit. * The rabbit was created by a "mother universe" which spawns a variety of universes. I'm not saying this is true. I'm just engaging in speculative hypothesizing. No observation or even experiment necessary! Science is easy.nullasalus_{November 12, 2010
November
11
Nov
12
12
2010
11:15 PM
11
11
15
PM
PDT}

I think of the "Grand Design" as speculative hypothesizing. That's one of the things that scientists do, so it could be called science. However, it is not settled science.Neil Rickert_{November 12, 2010
November
11
Nov
12
12
2010
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT}

The late, lamented century was an age dominated by theory, and particularly by theoretical science. All science that goes beyond simple observation is divided between sense and intellect, just like philosophy. This is because intellect is different from sense. Intellect has the power, for example, to produce grand, simple, unifying theories like Darwinism and Marxism and Relativity through its purifying capacity for resistance. But then it is a rule of science as well as philosophy that the simpler and purer such theories seem, the more they are divided from sense. The “Modern” age was a perfect storm of theory, marrying the worship of science with Nihilism and its resistance to the Transcendental Aesthetic. Think of Einstein’s famous bon mot about “common sense.” What mattered was the purity that could be obtained through theory and the sheer genius of the scientist. Sense was regarded as an impediment to the apotheosis of man in the age of the superman. Some of these grand theories have now died through attrition. No Marxist revolutions occurred in capitalist countries, casting doubt on the validity of the theory. No psychological healing of the masses occurred through Freudianism; therefore the theory was quietly abandoned in the end. Darwinism and Relativity have lasted longer than the others because neither one can be tested directly. That is, neither one can be falsified. Observers cannot be transported to the speed of light; therefore it is impossible to test the utility of Relativity as a practical tool for doing physics (as Einstein stated himself). The cocoon of resistance surrounding Darwinism is beginning to crumble, however. Each new discovery of microbiology makes Darwinism seem more and more unlikely; indeed, fanciful. This poses an immediate threat to Modernism, which used Darwin for its origins story. The pressure of this threat is forcing the theorists to make a visible retreat from reality. They are driven farther and farther into the realm of pure theory as sense observations reveal their limitations. For the Darwinists, this involves such phantasmagoric notions as “transpermia” and “multiverse.” For Hawking and his crowd, it’s “M-theory.” The postmodern retreat of the theorists into pure theory is an end game, however. The Age of Theory has outlived its usefulness and is about to overthrown. It will be interesting to see what replaces it.allanius_{November 12, 2010
November
11
Nov
12
12
2010
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

Untimately, 'Science!' must retreat to the irrational (and anti-rational) and absurd, for reason keeps pointing to God.Ilion_{November 11, 2010
November
11
Nov
11
11
2010
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply