Posted on 12/25/2008 7:02:01 PM PST by tpanther
'Multiverse' Theory Fails to Explain Away God by Brian Thomas, M.S.
New discoveries continue to reveal the life-friendly properties of our universe, in which physical laws are seemingly fine-tuned to allow life to exist. To get around the appearance of design, secular scientists have to invent naturalistic explanations that exclude the possibility of supernatural origins. The latest of these inventions is “multiverses.”
The force of gravity, the specific masses of subatomic particles, the exact strengths of fundamental physical forces, and the distance of the earth from other galaxies and from the sun are all essential for the delicate balance needed to sustain life. Bernard Carr, cosmologist at Queen Mary University of London, told Discover, “If there is only one universe, you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”1
The multiverse hypothesis holds that our entire universe is only one of an infinite number of other universes. In this way, all conceivable fundamental construction parameters could exist in a vast array of alternate realities. Most of these imaginary universes would not have the right conditions for life to exist, but by a cosmic coincidence, all the life-friendly forces of our universe happened to line up correctly.
There is no evidence for the existence of alternate universes, and if a concept cannot be proved or disproved, it is not open to scientific investigation. Stanford University visionary physicist Andrei Linde seemed adamant, however, that though this theory is not scientific, it must be true because it is logically necessary. When asked whether physicists will ever be able to prove the multiverse in the absence of any hope for physical confirmation, he told Discover, “Nothing else fits the data.”
What data? ...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.edu ...
We can never have evidence of an alternate universe because an alternate universe is unobservable by definition.
We can never have evidence of an alternate universe because an alternate universe is unobservable by definition.
It's been argued that there may be various sources of indirect evidence for the existence of other universes (or cosmic bubbles). Do a google search using "alternate universes + possible evidence" and similar expressions...
Taking this from Arthur Conan Doyle:
When you have eliminated the impossible (in their eyes, God), whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
JB
Here’s at least three scientists that disagree with you on several points:
As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry – and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.
Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry
Darwinism was an interesting idea in the 19th century, when handwaving explanations gave a plausible, if not properly scientific, framework into which we could fit biological facts. However, what we have learned since the days of Darwin throws doubt on natural selection’s ability to create complex biological systems - and we still have little more than handwaving as an argument in its favour.
Professor Colin Reeves
Dept of Mathematical Sciences
Coventry University
As a biochemist and software developer who works in genetic and metabolic screening, I am continually amazed by the incredible complexity of life. For example, each of us has a vast ‘computer program’ of six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together in numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes did it require – or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have – or did it even have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before natural selection? Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life – the foundation of evolution - is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact.
Chris Williams, Ph.D.,
Biochemistry
Ohio State University
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/scientists/
The first guys ends with this remark: "For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area." Since we don't yet understand the origin of life, this statement is only interesting as an anecdotal characterization of the state of mind of the writer. And note the word "current"—who knows what the future will bring in the way of evidence and experiment and theoretical context?
The second guy is a mathematician, so it's not very surprising that he's much more ready to throw in the towel on an evolutionary understanding of the origin of life than somebody who actually works in the field.
The third guy ends with this: "Clearly the origin of life – the foundation of evolution - is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact." Yes, that's correct. So what? It's a problem still being worked on!
Best regards and Happy New Year!
s_w_b
When I say this abgout ID, I don't get a free pass, so why is it you think evolution should?
If scientists themselves are beginning to doubt after so many hundred+ years...(or billions upon billions of years, depending on your place in the argument) how long is it we allow further research without a decent honest challenge with alternatives?And for Pete's sakes, what prevents this from being done alongside evolution?
In other words, explain to me why you see harm in telling kids that several scientists are interested in an alternative theory called intelligent design...or for that matter, why do you think kids are freely exposed to multiverse theory, without their parents being sued?
The third guy ends with this: "Clearly the origin of life – the foundation of evolution - is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact." Yes, that's correct. So what? It's a problem still being worked on!
So what? Ummm look around these threads, indeed look around the world all around you!
The evidence is all around!
What other theory, when challenged is always met with "that's religion and isn't allowed in science".
A group of concerned parents in my home state of Georgia placed a sticker on a science text, reminding the students that evolution theory is indeed theory AND NOT FACT..."that's what".
I'm more convinced than ever the theory of evolution is so often treated as fact, with no room for ANY dissent, that it's become a cult, neither fact OR theory these days.
Best regards and Happy New Year!
And to you!
"—who knows what the future will bring in the way of evidence and experiment and theoretical context?When I say this abgout ID, I don't get a free pass, so why is it you think evolution should?
Because evolution is science, ID is religion. To hypothesize that life forms are designed by an immaterial intellect is to hypothesize something which is unfalsifiable. That's religion. Evolution is falsifiable: discover the skeletal remains of a human that carbon date to, say, 10,000,000 years ago and you've turned evolution (at least as currently understood) into toast. That's science.
And, too, there's a huge difference between an on-going scientific enterprise being prosecuted by thousands of researchers all over the globe and a small, retrograde effort by a few disgruntled teleologists who envision cavemen riding on dinosaurs.
Sorry, tpanther, I appear to be a bit disgruntled myself today...
Evolution is falsifiable: discover the skeletal remains of a human thatcarbondate to, say, 10,000,000 years ago and you've turned evolution (at least as currently understood) into toast.
You'd have to find those fossilized remains in some undisturbed geological stratum of well-defined contextual age since radiocarbon dating methods don't extend more than a few tens of thousands of years into the past.
"I knew that." —Nathan Thurm
I keep hearing that but a growing list of scientists disagree with you.
To hypothesize that life forms are designed by an immaterial intellect is to hypothesize something which is unfalsifiable. That's religion.
And yet, to hypothesize that life just formed out of a pond all by itself without direction or intelligent design, a single cell that eventually led to our common ancestors is unfalsifiable also and requires enormous faith and therefore is religion also.
And, too, there's a huge difference between an on-going scientific enterprise being prosecuted by thousands of researchers all over the globe and a small, retrograde effort by a few disgruntled teleologists who envision cavemen riding on dinosaurs.
Wow...deriding valid scientific endeavors like that makes my case better than I EVER could!Did you miss the part about "growing" numbers of scientists that disagree with you!?
ANY challenge to evolution is always met by..."that's a religious assault on evolution".
Evolution is not fact, it's not even theory, as it's now PLAINLY "evolved" into a cult. ;)
Sorry, tpanther, I appear to be a bit disgruntled myself today...
It's OK, I notice alot of that on your side of the aisle! :)
Always fun engaging with you snarks.
And yet, to hypothesize that life just formed out of a pond all by itself without direction or intelligent design, a single cell that eventually led to our common ancestors is unfalsifiable also and requires enormous faith and therefore is religion also.
It probably wasn't a single cell right off the bat, and it may not have been in a pond, but I understand the point you're making. I expect the origins of life question will probably begin to be settled in the laboratory, when some clever experimenters succeed in coaxing something living out of chemicals that are to be found in Nature. Once that's done, the way will be opened to understanding the myriad ways in which life might have originated here on Earth on its own (and may have originated elsewhere in other ways). We may not witness this experimentum crucis, but I wouldn't be surprised if our grandchildren did...
In case you haven't seen it yet, I'll refer you to the January 2009 issue of Scientific American, tpanther. It's a special issue entitled "The Evolution of Evolution: How Darwin's Theory Survives, Thrives and Reshapes the World". I've not had a chance to begin reading the articles yet, but hope to in the next few days. You should read them, too, in order to keep track of the enemy's movements!
Take care and, again, Happy New Year!
Anything our grandchildren will see, will need an intelligent design component just to get the experiment off the grown, i.e., the scientists themselves setting up the just right environment, just right chemical mix, etc.
A Happy and safe New Year to you and yours!
Anything our grandchildren will see, will need an intelligent design component just to get the experiment off the grown, i.e., the scientists themselves setting up the just right environment, just right chemical mix, etc.
Yes, that's what the first paragraph of my last post said, tpanther. We'll have to crawl before we can walk.
Yes, but will we ever perform such an experiment without some kind of intelligent design behind it?
Yes, but will we ever perform such an experiment without some kind of intelligent design behind it?
If it's a human-designed experiment, the answer is clearly no. But the point I was attempting to make (and didn't make clearly, I guess) is that once a synthetic lifeform is produced in a lab somewhere, it will become clear that there is no insurmountable wall between the non-living and the living, and that the living arises out of the non-living under certain conditions. Attention will then turn to trying to determine whether the requisite conditions existed on the young Earth and whether similar conditions might exist elsewhere.
And we’ll all live on the gumdrop trees on the Big Rock Candy Mountain.
No you made it clearly enough, but it doesn’t solve anything we already don’t know. Life either happened with an intelligent designer behind it or it did not.
After all, both sides contend life came from dirt.
Frankly, I don’t think we’ll ever know or were meant to know within the confines of this particular existence.
What I DO know is it’s sad that one group is so insecure they demand to silence the other through the courts.
What I DO know is it’s sad that one group is so insecure they demand to silence the other through the courts.
tpanther, it's a mistake to see here two opposing sides of equal weight. That's just not the case. The number of professional biologists who believe that the evolution-paradigm is completely mistaken and will never be able to account for the origns of life is extremely tiny, probably fewer than the number of people who believe that the Earth is flat. We don't teach the phlogiston 'model' of combustion in physics classes, either, you know, and if some high-school physics teacher decided to start doing so, you can be sure that there would be a lawsuit filed to try and stop her (if she wasn't fired outright for being a dunce).
Start 2009 in the right way: don't forget to read those Scientific American articles! I'm starting in on them later today.
Oh no, it’s not an issue of “equal weight” but an issue of censorship and insecurity.
I’ve said lots of times, to leave evolution just as it is, my problem is with those that support evolution to the point that every auto-response from them to each evo challenge is: “that’s religion” or “theocracy” or “we’ll all be burned at the stake”, thereby turning evolution from theory into cult status.
There’s simply no ignoring this fact. The evidence is far too weighty, just look around this place!
Enjoy your New Year also, but cut back on the kool-aid! ;)
Actually, even Richard Dawkins admits that ID is a scientific, empirical hypothesis and not religion. He just denies that ID, if demonstrated, would imply there is a god. He says it could have been an alien lifeform.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.