Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is design in nature compatible with a multiverse?

arroba Email

File:Multiverse - level II.svg At the ID Facebook page (currently 6900+ members), commenter Steve Williams noted that “Neither a multiverse nor The Big Bang are incompatible with ID. ”

I thought about it and replied,

Whether a multiverse is compatible with ID seems to me not much of an issue because:

It is like asking, is intelligent water compatible with ID? A natural response would be, Is there any intelligent water? A person who thinks nature evidences design addresses only evidence from nature. It is a matter of principle that evidence comes first. That’s what we study.

Multiverse claims are based on theoretical constructs from well established directions in science (quantum mechanics) and – more commonly – poorly established ones (string theory). But they are merely theoretical constructs, as in “Such and so would make more sense if we assumed… ” Maybe, but you can’t build an arbitrarily large number of universes out of such a suggestion.

And expect others to take you seriously.

Actually, this objection arises frequently. The usual problem is that the objector thinks I mean that God could not create other universes. Of course God could create other universes. The discussion does not centre on what God could create.

Rather this: If we have no direct evidence of the existence of and information about, other universes, we cannot use them in conventional science-based reasoning. Their mere existence would not tell us anything. They could exist and all appear to be intelligently designed. That would hardly help the conventional multiverse argument. Only flopped universes would be evidence for their view

The following is not science-based reasoning: “Well, okay, this universe looks fine-tuned, but there must be an infinity of failed universes out there, and this is an accidental exception.” That’s just airy speculation asserting itself against fact. The multiverse rules on pop science TV because no story hook is so weak that it can’t support such a phantasm’s “weight.”

Note: Not only is the Big Bang compatible with ID, in all its forms, but that has been a principal objection to it from the very beginning. See Big Bang exterminator wanted, will train.

The objection to apparent fine-tuning of the universe is precisely that it is a well-established observation that suggests design in nature: See Copernicus, you are not going to believe who is using your name. Or how. – O’Leary for News

See also: Not only is earth one nice planet among many, but our entire universe is lost in a crowd

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Design is necessay in a Multiverse (or MegaVerse as Leonard Susskind calls it). Notice how Leonard makes use of "blueprints" in his description of the Multiverse. He also has God on his shortlist of viable explanations:) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cT4zZIHR3s&feature=youtube_gdata_player ppolish
I guess they're saying: IC exists. The probability that blind processes caused it is small. But this is the lucky universe where it happened. Silver Asiatic
I've always felt that Irreducible Complexity trumped the multiverse. If IC is true, blind processes can't work in *this* universe. Full stop. Doesn't matter how many others there are. geoffrobinson

Leave a Reply