It’s always good to see a Discoveroid stretch his mind a bit, and so you might enjoy this latest essay by
David Klinghoffer Casey Luskin in the Discoveroids’ creationist blog: Dennis Prager Explains Why Some Scientists Embrace the Multiverse.
[Addendum: It appears that we goofed. The Discoveroid article's byline says it's by Casey Luskin. We'll leave our title alone, but we'll make changes throughout the article.]
Who is Dennis Prager? We wrote about him once before — regarding an article he wrote for WorldNetDaily. That was WND: Evolution Leads to Leftist Coercion. Prager’s name shows up in all the best places.
Okay, let’s see what Casey has for us today. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added for emphasis:
At National Review Online, popular talk radio host Dennis Prager has a nice article titled “Why Some Scientists Embrace the ‘Multiverse’,” in which he reports on a recent scientific conference he attended:
We’ll skip most of Casey’s quotes, but here’s Prager’s article. If you read it, remember — it’s Prager’s interpretation of what he heard scientists say, and when he quotes them, we don’t know the full context. Okay, back to Casey:
After citing scientists who laud the evidence for fine-tuning — people like [names omitted] — Prager concludes that “[u]nless one is a closed-minded atheist (there are open-minded atheists), it is not valid on a purely scientific basis to deny that the universe is improbably fine-tuned to create life, let alone intelligent life.”
That kind of thinking always amazes us. Of course life is consistent with the laws of the universe. How could it be otherwise? But the universe wasn’t fine-tuned for us — it’s the other way around! Life’s compatibility with the laws of nature is evidence for a completely natural universe, not one that was supernaturally designed. If life were conclusively shown to be literally impossible, then (and only then) does it make sense to search beyond the universe for an explanation. But there’s no necessity for that.
Besides, if the grand and glorious designer — blessed be he! — fine-tuned the universe, then he also fine-tuned it for stars that go nova — as ours will, and for killer asteroids that cause mass extinctions, not to mention volcanoes, earthquakes, etc. Yeah — great job of fine-tuning! Let’s read on:
So why do some scientists embrace the multiverse? According to Prager, who is Jewish, it’s precisely because they want to avoid the conclusion of design: [Prager quote omitted.]
Aaaargh!! According to Prager, that’s the sole reason for considering the possibility of a multiverse — it’s all about avoiding intelligent design! We have to give you Casey’s next Prager quote:
They [scientists] have put forward the notion of a multiverse — the idea that there are many, perhaps an infinite number of, other universes. This idea renders meaningless the fine-tuning and, of course, the design arguments. After all, with an infinite number of universes, a universe with parameters friendly to intelligent life is more likely to arise somewhere by chance.
The multiverse — assuming each universe within it has different laws of nature — would certainly obviate the fine-tuning argument, but the fine-tuning argument isn’t terribly strong anyway (in our humble opinion). It seems to us, however, that the multiverse is quite unnecessary if one is solely concerned with rebutting intelligent design. The Discoveroids’ “theory” is worthless even if this is the only universe. There’s no need to reach beyond it. Then Casey quotes Prager saying this:
But there is not a shred of evidence of the existence of these other universes — nor could there be, since contact with another universe is impossible. Therefore, only one conclusion can be drawn: The fact that atheists have resorted to the multiverse argument constitutes a tacit admission that they have lost the argument about design in this universe.
No evidence of other universes? That’s true. But it’s also true there’s no evidence of an intelligent designer either. Will Casey be able to connect those dots and do some consistent thinking? Any bets, dear reader? Don’t bother — here’s Casey’s thoughtful analysis of the situation:
The great irony of the multiverse, of course, is that it doesn’t really help materialists escape the problem of cosmic fine-tuning. In order to render their postulations of multiple universes plausible, physicists have had to formulate various speculative cosmological theories involving hypothetical “universe-generating” mechanisms.
Yes, and according to Casey, that’s being done solely to escape the otherwise inevitable conclusion of intelligent design. All those scientists are frantically working to rebut the Discoveroids! Yes, Casey — it’s all about you!
We’ll skip a bunch more, but you gotta see Casey’s conclusion:
Given a choice between destroying the logical basis for doing science, or inferring design, it seems that some scientists opt for the multiverse.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! No, Casey. That’s not it at all. But you Discoveroids have an even better deal — you’re trying to destroy science and infer design in one package. For a creationist, it’s the best of all possible worlds!
Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.