Charles Darwin Writes a Letter to Stephen Hawking

john thomsa says:

As Jesus said, if the blind lead the blind they will both fall in the ditch. So Darwin has nothing to offer Hawking, other than the fact that since he has hoodwinked the intellectual elite of the western world for over a century, then perhaps the good professor can do the same thing.

For a new book that identifies and corrects the errors of both Darwin and most creationists, check out "The Real Origin of Species" at [Link Removed]

John Humphreys says:

Perhaps; we lowly apes are easily fooled.

I deleted the link you listed in your comment; it just wouldn’t feel right directing traffic to a commercial creationist website.

Thanks for the comment.

Prof Milton Wainwright says:

A Letter from Charles Darwin To Professor Hawking
Dear Professor Hawking,
I was less than honest in my last letter. You see I forgot to say that I was not the first to endure public hatred over the theory of evolution. In reality,the "Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation" by Chambers,published in the early 1840s, which was just as well read as my first book, took the public rage against the theory of transmutation(evolution),so by the time I wrote my "Origins" in 1859,the public were well-accustomed to such anti-religous sentiments. Some recent work by a certain Prof. Wainwright (search Google for "Wainwrightscience") has now emphasised that neither I, nor Wallace, originated the idea of natural selection and that all of the ideas I gave in the "Origins" had been published before 1857. So you see, I was not original in my ideas. Of course no one is taking any notice of these new findings down there and I am still heralded as the father of the theory of evolution for writing the best, and last, synthesis of Victorian ideas on evolution.Very Best CD.

John Humphreys says:

Prof Milton,

Hmmmmm… Well, I haven’t read your book, but even if – for the sake of argument – we assume your comment to be 100% accurate, I’m not real sure how the first letter would be considered dishonest? I just re-read it and don’t see any assertions about the ‘first’ or ‘only’ anything - am I missing something?

At any rate, I think your comment is a little misleading. ‘Transmutation’ was a term coined by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck before Chambers could walk and before Darwin was even born. And, the idea that later became known as ‘evolution’ can be traced much further back - to at least ancient Greece (check out Anaximander). In regards to scientists being persecuted by the religious, I seem to remember a story about a guy named Galileo Galilei…

As far as Chambers and Vestiges, they certainly influenced Darwin (he mentions them in several of his letters) but Darwin had already penned an overview of natural selection before the publication of Vestiges. More importantly, even if he hadn’t put his ideas to text before Chambers’ book, the idea that any historical scientist independently and spontaneously generated an original idea is almost always fallacious – that’s not how science works. Darwin and Wallace receive the bulk of the credit for evolution because they brought together ideas from disparate sources. They made connections; they took the next step.

“If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." - Newton


In the event you’re interested, I’ve written on Robert Chambers elsewhere.


I very much enjoy reading about the history of science, if you’d like to promote your book send me a copy and I’ll write a review of it.

Thanks for the comment!

Prof.Milton Wainwinght says:

Hi,Thanks for the discussion:
The problem is that Darwin is universally regarded as the originator of the ideas he published in "On the Origin of Species". He is described as a genius and the originator of the most dangerous idea in history,i.e. natural selection.Yet both he and Wallace admitted that they were beaten to natural selection by Patrick Matthew and William Charles Wells. Darwin sycophants, like Richard Dawkins, have tried to explain this away,but clearly if both Darwin and Wallace accepted that they were beaten to this idea then we should also. I am currently writing a book on this subject,but information of the pre-Darwin work on evoluton which has not previously been discussed can be found on my website by searching "wainwrightscience" on Google. Here you will find that every one of Darwin's "ideas" had been published by someone else (i.e not merely "in the air") before 1857,two years before the appearance of the "Origin".
Best Wishes, Prof.(Hon. Cardiff) Milton Wainwright. Dept. Mol.Biol.Biotechnol.University of Sheffield,UK

Chris Nortje says:

Hawking makes himself guilty of infinite regress. He proposes a solution to the problem that includes an identical problem within the solution. He would suggest that this universe was born from another universe and that the Big Bang is merely a bridge in between. So that would leave us with the infinite question: Where did the previous universe come from?

Also, no laws of physics existed before the Big Bang, so I can't imagine where he's coming from with the idea that the laws of gravity created the universe. The three laws of termodynamics is the most fundamental laws in physics. In the absence of energy and matter, these laws do not exist.

Yes, with black holes it can be proven that zero volume and infinite density (in other words nothing) has gravitational pull. However, gravitation is merely probable in the absence of at least one other body (measurable density and volume). In the absence of another body (at least varying density and volume), no opportunity will arise for gravity to generate energy.

Hawking proposes a super-universe that contains multiple universes inside it. Unless he can prove that this super-universe is static, he's theory falls apart. Since it cannot be proven, he is merely replacing a theist logic with the more popular Star Trek logic that most physicists like so much. However, as it can be shown in a court of law where you would have the logic of the state opposing the logic of the defence, it becomes clear that logic is rarely synonymous with reality. Hawking is thus only replacing one probable myth with another.

I choose to remain an idealist, thank you very much. Materialists are far too one dimensional with their "pebbles in a box" schemas.

dimension says:

this is not a question,it is very important for stephen hawking, but it is in hind Language,[mere paas aapke liye science me batane ke liye kuchh hai vo ye hai ki aap jo sochte hai ki earth kaise bani kya hua tha ye sab me darasal aise nahi ho rha hai balki mai aapko apni kuchh cheeje bata raha hu darasal ye poora bramhaand ek dimension ke roop me hai mai aapko proof kar sakta hu lekin mai abhi karoonga nahi bas itna batata hu ki jaise aap kisis bhi vastu ko dekhte hai to aap kahte hai ki ye light ka Reflection hai lekin aisa sahi tariike se nahi hai balki asal baat jab light kisi se takraati hai to usse ek madhyam ban jaata hai oorja ka ye oorja ka madhyam ek aisi cheej {electron nahi} ke dvara laya jaata hai jise aap nahi jaante, aur darasal force ke baare me koi sahi tareeke nahi bata sakta ki force hai kya sab usko ek example aur ek paribhasa ke roop me batate hai leki force darasal oorja hi hai isko bhi mai proof kar sakata hu aur darasal pdarth ke baare me bhi sab jo kahte hai vo nahi hai ye sab oorja hai aur oorja kya hai ye bhi koi sateek tareeke se nahi bata sakta kuki agar aap ye samajh paane me kaamyaab ho jaate hai ki oorja kya hai tab mai aap ko vo sab bata doonga ki poore bramhand me kya ho raha hai aap jo sochte hai bramhaand ke baare me vo mai bhut pahle sochta tha laki mai aap ko sirf itna batana chahta hu ki agar aap budhimaan hote tosabse phle ye janne ki kosis karte ki ham hamesa jinda kaise rahe jab ye sochte to saayad aap maine jitna khojka hai aap bhi khoj lete philha maine3 socha ki ab aapne itna socha hai science ke baare me to mai aapko kuchh bata du baki a brief history time ki book me aapne time ko achhi tareeke se nahi se nahi bata paaye hai kuki aap ke paas time kya hai iske baare me jaada gyaan nahi hai. baki science ke baare me mai tab bataaonga jab mujhe lagega ki aapka gyaan bdha hai aur ye mujhe kaise pata chalega iske lye aap apne baare me discovery me ek rojana aane vale show me batae ye sab only for stphen hawking ke kye hai

dimension says:

isme kuchh haindi me galtiya hai to usse aap paresaan na ho mai jaldi ke karan aisa likh gya koi baat nahi lekin mere paas science ke baare me bhut gyaan hai aap soch rahe honge ki mai aap ko ye ku bata raha hu bas ye samajh ligiye ki aapne kuch bhut sahi samjha hai science ke baare me islye. its only for stephen hawking

John Humphreys says:

Prof. Milton,

OK, I’ll bite; why is natural selection “the most dangerous idea in history”?

Thanks again for the comments.

John Humphreys says:

Chris,

As a response, I’ve posted a video from physicist Sean Carroll at the bottom of the article above. I’m not an expert of physics, but I think that equating Hawking’s ideas to mythology is a bad argument on philosophical grounds – Carroll’s explanation more-or-less mirrors my position.

Thanks for the comment – good stuff!

John Humphreys says:

dimension,

I'll give you a bit to provide an English translation - unless one is provided your comments will be deleted.

Thanks,
John

Seraphim says:

Dimension - not funny...even Google translator made a mess. Whatever you wanted to say, it looks simian to me. Btw. Hawking rullzzzz.

I've got science for me is it's you who she is aapke sochte kaise bani high earth happened to me these are such rha darasal balki Mai aapko apni hi bata am certain cheeje darasal nothing for ye poora batane Mai aapko bramhaand dimension of Ek roop me hi sakta by evidence but not enough so will tell you of My right karoonga jaise kisis if the architecture of the high-ye dekhte hi hu kahte reflection of light from high but not high aisa urchin tariike balki asal thing when you light someone for the ban jaata takraati High Medium High oorja Ek oorja middle usse to it's a 'so that (cheej not Electron) brought the dvara jise aap hi jaata not jaante, aur darasal baare me bata sakta force strength is not a porcupine tareeke 'roop me of all usko Ek Ek aur paribhasa example batate darasal oorja hi hi hi leki force it to Mai evidence of sakata hu aur darasal pdarth baare me all who are kahte It is not too high for all oorja aur oorja not from what even a sateek tareeke bata sakta tu me jaate hi samajh paane you of cookie is oorja "My tab will tell you everything she's poore bramhand to me is that you sochte baare me that Mai area of high bramhaand: pahle sochta what you would have had kaamyaab Laki mai itna batana just want you to do budhimaan tosabse phle janne tu kosis karte the ham kaise hamesa are alive So I started to sochte when ye jitna khojka high you even if you khoj lete philha maine3 socha aapne itna socha saayad now high science to me mai aapko bata du baki some time to book a brief history of baare me achhi Not the Bata paaye tareeke not to have high cookie if you do not have time during the iske baare me jaada gyaan aapne. baki science baare me when I lagega of bataaonga Mai tab aapka gyaan bdha High aur kaise pata ye will iske baare lye me if you find yourself coming to me Ek rojana Valley High Kye stphen hawking for showing me all these batae

Ron Krumpos says:

In "The Grand Design" Stephen Hawking postulates that the M-theory may be the Holy Grail of physics...the Grand Unified Theory which Einstein had tried to formulate and later abandoned. It expands on quantum mechanics and string theories.

In my e-book on comparative mysticism is a quote by Albert Einstein: “…most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and most radiant beauty – which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive form – this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of all religion.”

E=mc², Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, is probably the best known scientific equation. I revised it to help better understand the relationship between divine Essence (Spirit), matter (mass/energy: visible/dark) and consciousness (f(x) raised to its greatest power). Unlike the speed of light, which is a constant, there are no exact measurements for consciousness. In this hypothetical formula, basic consciousness may be of insects, to the second power of animals and to the third power the rational mind of humans. The fourth power is suprarational consciousness of mystics, when they intuit the divine essence in perceived matter. This was a convenient analogy, but there cannot be a divine formula.

Amman says:

well as far as the big crunch is concern. why should not we take it in positive aspect. when there was nothing the big bang occurred. Now we should also hope for the BIG POSSIBILITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!. we will not let the BIGCRUNCH be happened.