Bill Dembski wanted to know, re the multiverse (many worlds) theory: here:
Do many worlds present a business opportunity? Would it be possible, for a modest fee, for people to have worlds named after them? Are worlds, like genes, patentable?
A physicist friend figures that it’s better – or worse – than that. It might work for business but it would whack science cold because
Discovering the laws of our universe matters no more than noting the random tosses of dice. It certainly does not bring us closer to the heart of things. Think of any logically possible theory, and it probably holds true somewhere. Technology still makes sense in a multiverse, of course, but science as a pursuit of truth certainly loses some of its shine.
By the way, hat tip to Paul Glenn, commenter of the week, for noting in a comment to this post that there is no controversy over Darwinian evolution in North America in the same sense as there are no homosexuals in Iran.
Just up at Colliding Universes
All things are possible through the scientist who postulates very large numbers? Especially unimaginable things, I am sure.
Settled science chronicles: Reader disses “best science” boilerplate
Life could be just plain rare but not unique in the universe
Catholic Cardinal: Multiverse theory an “abdication of human intelligence”?
Just up at Overwhelming Evidence: Mostly about textbooks
More textbook chronicles: To Goodwill, to Goodwill, to buy us a materialist text cheaply
Textbooks: Unfortunately, Richard Feynman was NOT joking about textbooks!
Textbooks: Yet another journalist skeptical of Darwin lobby. I am rapidly developing a guest list for a Hacks’ Pub Nite!