Even though biologists may not exercise this level of care, it really is important not to equivocate on “evolution.” The word is perfectly useful in multiple contexts: the evolution of computers, stellar evolution, evolution of political thinking, bacterial antibiotic resistance, descent with modification, genetic change over time, the theory that random variation and natural selection account for all life’s diversity, and so on.

These all have one thing in common: change over time. They are in many ways also very different from each other. That the concept of evolution is useful or accurate in one of their contexts, therefore, provides no evidence that it is so in another. This is the crux of the micro/macro debate (terms used by Ernst Mayr and S.J. Gould, by the way). No one doubts microevolution happens. It provides only weak evidence, however, for RV plus NS accounting for all the species.

Sorry, you’re baiting me… and I won’t bite. I’m not interested in engaging with a “little of this, little of that” world view. At least atheists have the backbone to be committed to their (false) idea of no God. Rev 3:15-16.

No problem at all, but it really wasn’t just a defense of you. I have a deep problem of giving academics a pass/praise when they spout nonsense or outside their field simply because they happen to be academics or, worse, have written some popular books. So when it’s suggested that we should respect Hawking’s views on philosophy or metaphysics – even when he confuses them with science – because he’s “really intelligent”, I’m not about to play ball.

The world could do more with someone telling Dawkins or Hawking or others, “Wow, you’re really full of baloney, aintcha?” when they’re out of their league.

Viewing things from a totality perspective this looks meager indeed and not very conclusive.

.
How many examples would you like? Let’s see. Research that I myself have run across within the past year. The evolution of multicellularity is being studied to deduce the origin of cancer. (We’re talking sponges here—in cancer research! Who woulda thought?) The evolution of bacterial signaling molecules has led to a new way to prevent bacteria from infecting people, without killing the bacteria. (So no anti-biotic resistance.) Investigating the origin of taste buds has led to the development of a new class of compounds that have no taste themselves, but can alter the taste of other foods. (“Taste modulators”) How did the reptilian 3-chambered heart evolve into the nmammalian 4-chambered variety? Noodling out the answer isolated an enzyme that can repair a common heart defect in newborns. Studies of human evolutionary adaptations to high altitudes isolated a factor for anemia. (Imagine!) Evolutionary genetics traces almost all Jews back to the Levant. (They had wondered for a long time how many were ethnic and how many converts. Very few converts, it turns out.) Every animal in the world that produces sperm uses a version of the same gene. (Maybe no practical applications yet, but who knows?) If you think that biological diversity is important, then U British Columbia has tied frequency-dependent multiple traits to determine how to maintain diversity in an ecology. Studying the evolutionary dynamics of transcription-factor binding revealed the source of some gross defects in embryos. The evolution of microbial cooperation promises to guard against harmful “cheaters” in our bodies’ bacterial populations.

S, how many examples are enough? (I only went back a few months, a full year would take too long.) But I have a feeling that no number would satisfy Bradford; he’d continue to ask for more. Meanwhile, of course, the number of benefits that have emerged from applying theories of creation over the past century is … exactly … ZERO.

By their fruits shall you know them.

I truly appreciate your kind words, but please don’t feel you need to defend me. I mean that in the kindest, sincerest way possible. And, it’s also not meant to suggest that “I can do it on my own” (I can’t, for to think so would be sheer hubris), but rather to save you guys from cleaning too much gunk from your raincoats and umbrellas and boots–gunk which I’m happy to field.

Isn’t the typical appeal to “the universe popped out of nothingness!” a partial vindication of Christian theism? I mean, an ex nihilo creation isn’t exactly foreign to Christianity. Yes, the atheist claim is that there was no cause or purpose behind this – kind of like the doctrine of ex nihilo creation without God – but isn’t that comparable to admitting that Christ was resurrected, but insisting His resurrection was naturalistic? (Say a quantum tunneling event.)

Similarly, in the video there’s talk of design, then suddenly the contrast of evolution. But those two things aren’t mutually exclusive, certainly not when speaking of God. Neither does, it seems to me, speaking of ‘God created the world’ and the idea that laws or sudden coming-into-being of the universe played a role in that story. It seems like a false dichotomy in both cases.

You confuse strength of purpose and certitude with “know-it-allness.” Hawking is wrong–dead wrong: asserting that doesn’t make one a know-it-all. (In fact, to not strongly vocalize a dangerous error to expose it so that others may avoid serious knock-on mistakes is the mark of a weak character.)

Ahh, but in your eclectic, multi-mysticism, every-idea-has-equal-merit, nonsensical view of reality no one can be correct, can they… which means you as well, doesn’t it? This isn’t about choosing a Honda vs. a Ford, or deciding to paint the house or waterproof the foundations. This is about direct and unequivocal threats to truth on the part of Hawking and Guth… and what makes it worse is they do it to buttress their own personal, subjective notions of what reality should be.

In any event, I have little respect for Hawking and I stand firm on that: his ideas are a danger to intellectual inquiry… an objective pursuit of truth which, by the way, does not rate too highly in your pseudo-mystical view of the world.

Finally, yes, everyone makes mistakes… yet making mistakes and continuing to propagate them is beyond the pale of reasonableness: it’s a mark of disordered “tolerance” on your part to permit them air time without having to face strong and uncompromising criticisms.

You’re making a mistake with your “A little of this, a little of that” camper’s stew, pseudo-mysticism… and yet you continue to promote it. Yet, I’m not going to waste my time arguing against your vision of the world because reasoned argumentation takes a back seat to your personal opinions and emotional desires, doesn’t it?

True mysticism is ordered to truth and Truth. False mysticism is ordered to personal opinions–usually a plethora of them–in order to easily play chameleon “hide-and-seek” when confronted with truth… any truth.

I don’t think Holopupenko pretends to know all. But he clearly can tell when someone – even someone deservedly respected in one field – is clearly BSing in another field. And he doesn’t mince words when that goes on.

What’s more, judging by what I’ve read of Hawking, I doubt he really is more intelligent than Holopupenko, and quite possibly even you, when it comes to philosophy and metaphysics. He clearly disdains it, and as a result has a poor and shallow treatment of it. I see little reason to feign respect for someone grandstanding without warrant, their other accomplishments aside.

Olorin: But there are also numerous experimental findings that are crucial to making policy decisions that shape society. Human-induced climate change is currently at the forefront. Within evolutionary biology, I have previously mentioned the salmon restoration program (done wrong on evolutionary principles, and subsequently failed) and the Australian tuna program (conceived on the basis of evolutionary experiments).

Viewing things from a totality perspective this looks meager indeed and not very conclusive. The global warming theory of course has spawned a movement and cooperative ventures involving big business and government. But what is striking about the movement is not its linkage of projects to predictive data about climate change, but rather the absence of this tendency. Global warming theory is a boon to mega-corporations, a feel good source for eco-activists including some politicians and a major expense for every day consumers. Electric bills are slated to increase by billions in the coming decades while CO2 output, mainly from Asian sources, soars. Climate change as a result of activism? No. But a channel for religious impulses among secular factions? Indeed.

There are numerous experimental findings that are irrelevant to those making policy decisions that shape society.

.
Agree. But there are also numerous experimental findings that are crucial to making policy decisions that shape society. Human-induced climate change is currently at the forefront. Within evolutionary biology, I have previously mentioned the salmon restoration program (done wrong on evolutionary principles, and subsequently failed) and the Australian tuna program (conceived on the basis of evolutionary experiments).

I take it you agree that evolution has little value beyond its biological context.

.
Au contraire. See above for policy applications in fisheries.

If you mean that the study of evolution has no applicability outside biology, again wrong. As a trivial example, programs to construct evolutionary trees have been employed to reconstruct Chaucer’s original Canterbury Tales. Also mentioned previously was that economists are finding that evolutionary stable strategies offer solutions to their beloved Nash equilibria. In general, evolutionary biology has been and remains a key area in the emerging study of generalized complex systems. See, e.g., S.Y. Auyang’s classic, Foundations of Complex System Theories in Evolutionary Biology, Economics, and Statistical Mechanics (1999).

When more and more Darwinists tip the hat to Darwinism as an excuse to be dangerous, you’ve got more reason to think it actually is.

As Tom mentioned, people do the same with religion, but in most cases the religion teaches the opposite so it’s hard to argue that it’s the religion that is dangerous. Some are genuinely dangerous.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/09/james_j_lee_hostage-taker_and_037811.html

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/09/major_media_spike_discovery_ch037851.html

There are numerous cases where a philosopher might perceive a difference that would be irrelevant to a scientist.

There are numerous experimental findings that are irrelevant to those making policy decisions that shape society. I take it you agree that evolution has little value beyond its biological context.

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.” [Hawking]

This is world-class nonsense: the sad thing is Hawking is too lacking in reflective sanity checks to avoid becoming a laughing stock.

For comparison, here’s Guth’s unscientific assertion from April 2002 issue of Discovery:

“The entire universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere…”

One cannot get more irrational than this. Why? Because the statement doesn’t imply something (God?) created the universe ex nihilo, but rather that the universe is explained by saying it ITSELF came from nothing! The universe IS the necessary Being!

(A wonderful principle that every child knows with perfect certitude is attributed to Parmenides but which was later elucidated upon by the Medieval Scholastics: ex nihilo nihil fit [nothing comes from nothing].)

The “universe is necessary” is an Ancient Greek belief high-jacked for modern ideological (scientistic) purposes—a belief that, ironically, suppressed the development of science as self-sustaining human endeavor. The MESs arose from AND sustained themselves in the High Scholastic period of western Europe, giving rise to an explosion of post-Enlightenment scientific findings (hence the myth of attributing the rise of science to the Enlightenment). The “universe is necessary” is exactly one of the bad ideas that had to be purged from the minds of thinkers before their creative energies could fruitfully be released to focus upon material reality. And yet quite ironically, here we have Guth and Hawking peddling it as a good idea! (Bandying about ideas doesn’t actualize them.) Dude: they walk among us…

Further, the pseudo-philosophical view of reality Guth shares with Hawking (likely, they’re comparing notes in the “garbage in, garbage out” sense) that is also ultimately harmful to the MESs because it is similar to the nonsensical Taoist claim that the ‘nothing’ can for ever give rise to ‘everything.’ Such a notion not only fails to enlighten us about reality, but it in fact generates a great number of confusing doubts.

One of my favorite quotes from Chesterton is: “… it is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.”

So, to echo Tom from the Bering posts: such stupid pet tricks from Hawking and Guth are dangerous to intellectual inquiry because (a) they stifle it (recall the “just so” stories), and (b) they damage the MESs.

They walk among us…

P.S. Notice in the middle of the article whose link you provide, Hawking states (from his 1988 A Brief History of Time “If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason — for then we should know the mind of God.” That’s what I mentioned earlier: Hawking later abandoned that wild goose chase.