A Critique of the Grand Design: Part 1

Covering Chapter 1 of Hawking's book, The Grand Design

I am a young earth creationist, and I don't apologize for that! In spite of much opposition to this view from current "science", I hold this view because it follows the teachings of the Bible most closely. It is true that the same Scriptures that young earth creationists use as a basis have been interpreted differently by others. However, they do so via eisegesis, that is, reading into the text something that is not there. This is a common failing in our time.

This is a critique of Stephen Hawking's most recent book. His understanding of physics is far beyond my own. But ... in this book, he has begun to delve into another realm, that of philosophy. He blithely claims that philosophy has failed and that is should be replaced by ...physics. That is like saying the computer should be replaced by a bicycle! It won't work! Their function is not the same.

In fact, Hawking goes so far as to say that philosophy is dead (p. 5). His reasoning is that philosophy has not kept up with physics and so, now, physics should take the place of philosophy. That is a fine statement, but will it work? No! Just as a computer cannot take the place of a bicycle, and a bicycle cannot take the place of a computer, so physics cannot replace philosophy!

The only way that physics could replace philosophy is for it to stop being physics! Science and philosophy are different things. One does not duplicate the function of the other.

Philosophy is a foundational piece beneath science, and thus, physics. It is philosophy that provided support for the scientific method, that things can be determined through repeated experiment. That is how theories are tested in science! And we have this because of philosophy! Do they want to replace this with untested speculation? This is how the "science" of the Greeks was often done. Their "science" was not science as we know it, as it was not designed to be tested. This is why Greek "science" did not progress as modern science has! Is this what they want us to return to? It doesn't work! And yet, in my study of M-Theory, I have come to understand that this is exactly what some "scientists" want. They want remove the requirement that theories must be designed to be tested. Once that happens, science will fail. Theories will be "tested" via subjective approbation. Hence, it will cease to be science.

Returning to the analogy, a computer can be used to design a bicycle, but it cannot take its place! It is just as absurd to try to replace the computer with a bicycle. Perhaps a hybrid device could be formed. But the more like a computer, the less is can function as a bicycle. The more it becomes like a bicycle, the less it functions as a computer. The hybrid device functions more poorly than the separate devices! In the same way, a hybridization (or complete replacement) of philosophy with physics does not function as well as the two apart!

A Lesser Son of the King
Copyright RL