This is almost a new topic for the creation scientists at Answers in Genesis (AIG) — the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia. The title is Multiverse: Is Our Universe One of Many? Well, five years they mentioned it briefly in Faith in the Multiverse.
Other creationist websites have opined on the multiverse — and they don’t like it. For example, see Klinghoffer Equates Evolution and the Multiverse. In a moment of supreme irony of which he was unaware, Klinghoffer said this about the multiverse:
A hypothesis with no evidence to speak of, whose supporters nevertheless feel a burning need for it to be true. What does that remind you of?
The AIG post was written by Danny Faulkner. Here’s their biographical information about him. They say he taught physics and astronomy until he joined AIG. His undergraduate degree is from Bob Jones University. We’ll give you some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis. It begins well enough:
The multiverse is the belief that our universe is just one of many universes. Presumably, each universe exists parallel to and independent of one another. If this sounds like science fiction, philosophy, or religion, it is, because the multiverse could be classified in any one of those categories. Whatever the multiverse is, it definitely is not science. How can the multiverse be scientific (given that science is the study of the natural world using our five senses) when other universes, by definition, are beyond our ability to detect?
Then he drags in evolution:
In the broadest sense, evolution is the belief that the world has come about through totally natural processes. The origin of life is just one example of natural processes posited by evolution. If life arose on the earth but nowhere else, then the earth is by definition unique. But if the earth is unique, then it has a privileged status, which in turn suggests the possibility that earth and the life on earth were designed. And design implies a Designer, which brings one back to creation. Hence, the vast majority of people who believe in evolution also believe that life is relatively common in the universe.
The evidence for evolution is good enough that it won’t be overturned even if life on Earth is unique. Anyway, after that Danny gives us some history — as if it makes his point:
More than a half century ago, the Austrian-born British cosmologist Hermann Bondi coined the term Copernican principle to refer to the assumed mediocrity of our place in the universe. Bondi picked this name because four centuries earlier Nicholas Copernicus had played a key role in removing the earth from the center of the solar system, which some had viewed as a privileged position. A century ago, the work of the American astronomer Harlow Shapley displaced the sun from the center of the Milky Way. Shortly thereafter, the American astronomer Edwin Hubble showed that our Milky Way was just one of billions of galaxies. This work suggested that we were not in any particularly significant location.
Indeed. Earth is just a dot in the cosmos. That should be enough to convince the creationists that there’s nothing special about our planet. But Danny is oblivious to that. He continues:
Those who believe in the multiverse want to do the same thing for the universe: their contention is that just as there is nothing remarkable about our planet, there is nothing remarkable about our universe. After all, if there is only one universe, and it appears designed, then that again leads to the conclusion that there must be a Creator.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! But the universe doesn’t appear to be designed, so we don’t need the multiverse merely to make that point. Ah well, let’s read on:
Note that there is no science in any of this. Instead, belief in the multiverse is a desperate attempt to avoid the implications of design even when design is staring us in the face.
[*Curmudgeon looks around, but sees no evidence of design*] Now we’ve arrived at Danny’s final paragraph:
It is amazing that otherwise rational people choose to believe in the multiverse, especially when it is very clear that they think that this is the logical, reasonable conclusion to reach. [Bible discussion.] The heavens do declare God’s glory, and no amount of speculation about a multiverse can change that.
So Danny, and presumably the rest of AIG, reject the notion of the multiverse. We don’t blame them. After Copernicus, Shapley, and Hubble showed that the Earth isn’t the center of the universe, they’ve gotta draw the line somewhere. For what it’s worth, your Curmudgeon isn’t very impressed with the multiverse concept either, but for different reasons — see The Multiverse or God-Did-It? One universe is enough for us — especially when we’re unlikely to ever have evidence of any others.
Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.