Lee Smolin: Evolution Has A Better Chance

Cosmology is not Darwinian evolution, is it? Well, cosmologist Lee Smokin seems to think so! In fact he says he got his inspiration from none other than Richard Dawkins by using “fitness” in the Darwinian hypothesis as a means of understanding the origin of the universe.

He writes

“String theory brought the landscape issue into focus but, as we have seen, it was inevitable that as physics progressed we would have encountered the problem of explaining how the universe chose its laws. We can call this the generalized landscape problem. Whether string theory is the right theory of unification or not, it is clear that this general landscape problem must be solved.”

“But as we have seen, this problem can only be solved if we abandon the idea that ultimate explanations in physics are to be given in terms of laws organized according to the Newtonian paradigm, with timeless laws acting on a timeless space of states.”

“As Wheeler, Dirac and Pierce understood, laws must evolve to be explained. It is likely also that the absolute distinction between laws and states must break down14. Our mandate is then to invent new kinds of theories that answer these challenges, while staying true to the demands that theories make predictions by which they can be falsified.”

“The still open problem of giving string theory or M theory a background independent formulation that would be the setting to resolve the landscape issue should be re-examined in this light. The main lesson which can be drawn from the successes and failures of attempts to resolve the landscape problem surveyed here is that theories which embrace the evolution of laws have a better chance to make falsifiable predictions than do theories which try to hold onto to the notion that law is eternal.

Laws of nature or the universe are put in place for a purpose, rather than a mindless act. Could have Apple invented the IPhone over billions of years with random acts that somehow appear which then are chosen for fitness?

Stephen Hawking’s New Book Falls Into Anti-Realism

The Grand Design sounds more like a creationist or ID book rather than a consequence of the law of gravity. With this new book, Hawking decided to abandoned his hope in mankind’s ability to come up with a “theory of everything” as promised in A Brief History of Time. Three decades ago, he stated there was a fifty per cent chance of completing a “theory of everything” by 2000 but to no avail. His prediction wasn’t based on a possible acceptance of a creator, rather he used “God” as a metaphor because the vast majority of the population are theists.

The Grand Design has caught the attention of the mainstream media where it’s been hyped up and even my local newspaper picked up the story from the Associated Press. In one of the reviews about his new book, New Scientist says…

M-theory in either sense is far from complete. But that doesn’t stop the authors from asserting that it explains the mysteries of existence: why there is something rather than nothing, why this set of laws and not another, and why we exist at all. According to Hawking, enough is known about M-theory to see that God is not needed to answer these questions. Instead, string theory points to the existence of a multiverse, and this multiverse coupled with anthropic reasoning will suffice. Personally, I am doubtful.”


Take life. We are lucky to be alive. Imagine all the ways physics might have precluded life: gravity could have been stronger, electrons could have been as big as basketballs and so on. Does this intuitive “luck” warrant the postulation of God? No. Does it warrant the postulation of an infinity of universes? The authors and many others think so. In the absence of theory, though, this is nothing more than a hunch doomed – until we start watching universes come into being – to remain untested and untestable. The lesson isn’t that we face a dilemma between God and the multiverse, but that we shouldn’t go off the rails at the first sign of coincidences.”

This review is refreshing and more realistic than other publications that I have seen. The Grand Design falls into anti-realism where there are multiple independent views of reality which are considered possible, each one model-dependent without providing an example of reality. A theory for everything could also fit into anti-realism as well. This is what I call storytelling or science fiction!

Hawkings looks even more lost as he tries to explain away God being the creator. The problem with something being created out of nothing defies the laws of physics. So he did what Darwinian evolution does, you start out with something and go from there. Hawkings claims there was pre-existing gravity and a multi-universe instead of nothing and this is his vain imagination is why he argues against God being the Creator. Where did the laws of nature come from? Where did gravity come from? To suggest pre-existing material for natural evolving purposes that is eternal would be going against the law of entropy!

Updated September 17, 2010: From the Wallstreet Journal

Krauss, a cosmologist, is director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University writes…

“It appears that the dominant energy in our universe doesn’t reside in normal matter, or even mysterious dark matter. Rather, it is located in a much more mysterious form of energy in empty space. Figuring out why empty space has energy is perhaps the biggest mystery in physics and cosmology today.”

“The existence of this energy, called dark energy, has another consequence: It changes the picture so that knowing the geometry of the universe is no longer enough to determine its future. While this may be a disappointment, the existence of dark energy and a flat universe has profound implications for those of us who suspected the universe might arise from nothing.”

“Why? Because if you add up the total energy of a flat universe, the result is precisely zero…Think about it: If our universe arose spontaneously from nothing at all, one might predict that its total energy should be zero.”

There is no way that secular scientists or other people in general would believe that thunderstorms are created out of nothing with zero energy popping out of empty spaces, nor mountains, nor the grass that grows on our lawns! Stephen Hawking and Krauss alike are fools professing himself to be wise as they sink deeper into anti-realism of absurdity which defies natural laws which they profess to believe in while also denying the ever growing evidence for a Universe created by God which we as Christians rejoice in!