David Klinghoffer and the Multiverse

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.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

14 responses to “David Klinghoffer and the Multiverse

  1. I listen to Prager’s show and he’s made this stupid argument multiple times. Problem is he looks at science as a form of theology. He can’t grasp that scientists go where the evidence leads them, instead he thinks scientists have a theological agenda.

    He also believes the false dichotomy that if evolution is true then life is meaningless. Very bright guy, but clueless about science.

  2. Ceteris Paribus

    anevilmeme says: ” Very bright guy, but clueless about science.”

    That’s a great back-handed compliment. A bit like saying Koko is a “Very talented gorilla, but clueless about Renaissance art.”

  3. I may be misreading something, but it appears to me that this garbage was penned by Casey Luskin, not Klinghoffer.

  4. I mean, Casey should get credit where it is due. :)

  5. The whole truth

    “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.”

    Hmm, does prager expect someone to be able to make a phone call to another universe to prove that it exists?

    I don’t know if there are other universes or not but I don’t think that it’s “impossible” to find evidence of their existence, if such evidence exists. Some cosmologists also don’t think it’s impossible and have either proposed ways of finding such evidence or may have already found it:

    http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/06/the-dark-flow-the-existence-of-other-universes-new-claims-of-hard-evidence.html

  6. The whole truth

    The Discotute article is indeed by luskin, not that there’s much difference between him and klinghoffer. They’re both brain dead.

  7. Of course life is consistent with the laws of the universe. How could it be otherwise?
    If mightily powerful intelligent designer(s) whose motives and desires are unknown to us designed life, then there could be life no matter what the laws of the universe were.
    Just as, on a smaller scale, novelists and other creative artists can design life-forms which are inconsistent with the laws of the universe.

  8. Keelyn says: “I may be misreading something, but it appears to me that this garbage was penned by Casey Luskin, not Klinghoffer.”

    Yes, Casey’s byline is there — at least it is this morning. It’s quite possible that I got it wrong yesterday, and it’s also possible that David’s name was there but it’s been changed. Now we’ll never know. If I goofed, it’s not the first time, but I won’t change my title

  9. //// 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! /////

    What about the abundance of dead & barren planets even in our own solar system? If the universe was fine-tuned for life, they seem like a total waste of resources!

    The earth itself was hostile for a billion years after its formation before the first living cells emerged. Then it took a whopping 3 billion years before complex animals arose. Life on land became possible only after oxygen levels rose enough to produce the radiation-blocking ozone layer about 4 billion years after the earth was born!

    This is hardly a Garden-of-Eden scenario! No one needs to invent a multiverse to counter fine-tuning!

  10. Christianity would also seem to require a multiverse. Where is heaven? And you get there instantly after you die, unencumbered by the speed of light and any other bothersome law of physics.
    Creationists flatter themselves if they think multiverse hypotheses are in anyway related to counter intelligent design, their childish outlook isn’t a consideration.
    Contrary to what Prager says multiversal communication may well be possible. I don’t know much about it but some think that gravity is too weak and the fact there is no antigravity, gravity may well be leaking into other universes.

  11. This is probably the clearest explanation for why physicists think there is a multiverse. It’s a consequence of their best, most conservative, model of the big bang… and quantum theory. It wasn’t invented to solve a problem, or negate the fine-tuning argument, etc. In it’s most basic form, if has the same laws of physics everywhere.

    http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/10/28/why-we-think-theres-a-multiver/

  12. docbill1351

    Because when I want to learn about advanced physics and cosmology that’s where I go – conservative radio talk show host.

    Srsly, they knows everythings! Rly.

  13. marcoli666

    Well, its nice that they understand the implications of the multiverse. If anyone is interested in learning why the universe is NOT fine tuned, I highly recommend the book by Victor Stenger: The Fallacy of Fine Tuning.

  14. In addition to Ethan’s excellent post at “Starts With a Bang” referenced above, there is an in-depth treatment of this topic in Brian Greene’s book “Hidden Reality”. A terrific quote from the first chapter:

    It’s not that physicists are standing ready, multiverse nets in their hands, seeking to snare any passing theory that might be slotted, however awkwardly, into a parallel-universe paradigm. Rather, all of the parallel-universe proposals that we will take seriously emerge unbidden from the mathematics of theories developed to explain conventional data and observations.

    He then goes on to describe things like “eternal inflation” ala Ethan’s post, ending with the just weird (are we living in the MATRIX?). A fun, but sometimes heavy read.