Hawking’s Grand Delusion (Part I)

Stephen Hawking 'speaks' once again 'ex cathedra'

We consider the 2010 book The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow (screenwriter for Star Trek: the Next Generation), but first we must lay some groundwork. For ease of digestion this post is split into three parts, the first two parts being introductory.

Intelligent Design and the limits of science

To start with, here’s an old chestnut: is ‘Intelligent Design’ a scientific hypothesis? Well, it is a hypothesis, and a most intelligent hypothesis, held by the brightest of minds for thousands of years, that something with the appearance of design (which even atheists admit) is actually designed. Whether or not it is true, it cannot be denied except by the most churlish that the inference is a reasonable one. However, if we deliberately limit the term ‘scientific’ to natural science, wherein scientific hypotheses have natural explanations exclusively in terms of natural phenomena from within the natural world itself – a closed system where there is no external causation, or where at the very least external causation is beyond the scope of scientific explanation – then according to this definition intelligent design cannot be a scientific hypothesis.

But so what? All this means is that science is deliberately limited in explanation, and deliberately so limited by definition. Primary causation is not only outside but also incomprehensible to scientific enquiry, so primary causation, even if true, cannot offer a ‘scientific’ explanation. Without access to the designer’s original plan, as it were, where could the hypothesis of intelligent design take us from a ‘scientific’ perspective? It has no explanatory power, no predictive capability, no falsifiability within the self-defined and self-limiting ‘scientific’ realm. As an example, if I tell you in all truth that the jet engine was designed by Frank Whittle, what does that fact tell you about the jet engine other than that it was designed by Frank Whittle?

This really is no big deal. It’s no different in principle from saying that ‘internal mail’ is post that travels exclusively within a company, or ‘inland mail’ is post that travels exclusively within a country. None of these concepts and definitions precludes the possibility that mail can come into a company or a country from outside. Just as the term internal/inland comports a limiting definition when applied to mail, so the term ‘scientific’ comports a limiting definition when qualifying a hypothesis.

Of course, it would be wholly illogical to suggest that because invoking a divine creator is not a ‘scientific’ explanation then there is no creator and no primary causation. That would be a fundamental fallacy, like saying that because invoking the concept of international mail is beyond the scope of inland mail then there can’t be mail from other countries or mail systems in other countries, so you can’t have international mail. A divine creative act is by definition not a scientific explanation, nor should a ‘scientific’ explanation be sought (or accepted) if we know (or believe) that creation was by primary causation – any scientific explanation proffered will by definition be wrong. To use the analogy again, if we know or have reason to believe that some mail is international it will be wrong to insist and define that all mail in circulation within a country must be inland mail. A creative act of bringing the universe into being is by definition a cause from outside the universe that is beyond the reach of scientific enquiry and the methods of natural science. But philosophy and theology can go further than science, into the realm of metaphysics. Science chooses to shut itself inside its closed box.

5 Responses to “Hawking’s Grand Delusion (Part I)”

  1. 1 Oliver K. Manuel February 11, 2011 at 7:53 pm

    The Grand Design is like Truth – something that we can move toward but never achieve. In a sense, God, Grand Design, and Truth seem to be beyond the grasp of mortals.

    No matter how much we know – through careful experiments or through spiritual meditation (reflection) – more will always be revealed. We will never have “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” except in courtrooms and in the deranged minds of dogmatic egotists.

    That said, I can report today (after 50+ years of measurements and reflection) that the hydrogen that covers the surfaces of the Sun and other ordinary stars is almost certainly a waste product generated by
    a.) neutron-emission from the stellar core, followed by
    b.) neutron-decay to H+ and e- [1,2].


    1. “The sun’s origin, composition and source of energy” (2001)

    Click to access lpsc.prn.pdf

    2. “Neutron Repulsion” (2011)

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

  2. 2 Harry Costas February 14, 2011 at 9:18 am


    The truth in courts is dictated by the size and depth of one’s pocket, this has been proven throughout history.

    As for Grand design and any form of religion, with due respect should not be dicussed to add weight or influence to any science discussion.

    Can water and oil mix?

    As for S Hawking theories and evidence and how they dominated science is an insult to the science community that allowed such science to become maintream thinking.

  3. 3 Oliver K. Manuel February 14, 2011 at 2:35 pm

    Thanks, Harry, for your excellent comments.

    I have also had some discomfort about mixing science and spirituality.

    However in my experience, science (making measurements) and spirituality (meditation or contemplation) are two different ways of “truthing:”

    “Truthing”: Seeking to understand “what is”, while admitting that you will never have the whole truth – more will always be revealed later.

    Honest “truthing” is a process of ego reduction.

    Honest “truthing” generates humility and reverence.

    Claiming that you have the truth is a sure sign of failure.

    Dogmatic scientists and dogmatic religionists are identical twins, hiding under different cloaks of respectability.

    Many have noted that consensus science is like religion. The commonality is selfish, arrogant egotism.

    Perhaps a combination of science and spirituality will be required to overcome the ills of consensus science.

  4. 4 orthotox June 22, 2011 at 6:17 pm

    Sounds like the writer is hearkening back to a clockwork conception of creation, where natural law and divine purpose operate in mutually isolated tandem. But science insists on a god-free universe because even the possibility of supernatural intervention must subvert any pretension to nomological consistency. So the very scientific laws once invoked as evidence of the divine have now outlawed the divine itself. The hand of God or the law of nature: one or t’other.

  5. 5 Dr.Md.Shahidul Ferdous January 7, 2012 at 6:09 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: