It is true that some multiverse models do a better job of producing a range of possibilities than others, but unless we can actually justify the probability of creating a universe suited for intelligent life, it’s largely handwaving. (Not particularly different from the problem for ID of accurately calculating probabilities - the problem applies equally to claiming that our universe is likely and claiming that it isn’t.)
Agreed. It is handwaving couched in sciency language. It is an explanation, but an untestable one.
Hi David,
The multiverse is problematic not so much in what it can offer to the discussion but in that we are so limited to conduct Science on it, if it does in fact exist. Even with vastly improved Science, it is not clear to me how empirical Science could study this type of thing in the foreseeable future effectively. Like the practical economic limitations of building bigger and bigger particle accelerators for diminishing returns in theoretical physics, it will be very difficult for Science to justify trillion dollar projects to “maybe” show some possibility of multiple universes and some minor details about them. The popular book The End of Science outlines many of the problems facing modern Science and moving our fundamental understanding in areas like theoretical physics and astrophysics forward.
At present we don’t know for sure how the fundamental laws might be affected by a multiverse (Maybe the laws are NOT Fundamental!). For all we know, things like the speed of light may not be constant (already a concern for our own universe although rarely discussed) and the gravitational constant are not really constant. We assume a lot of things to make our physical theories understandable (such as in the past Euclidean geometry) which often turn out to be only approximations or completely wrong at some larger or smaller level. If there are infinite numbers of universes with different laws than it is probable that life forming organisms exist and exist infinitely but probably a smaller infinity than uninhabitable universes. However, all of these things currently are like conjuring up the probable number of angels on the head of a pin - we simply don’t have the tools to properly study such things.
So yes, the multiverse is problematic but not for any known physical reason. Only reasons related to our own limited means of studying their existence and properties. We must not catch ourselves falling for a “god of the gaps” explanation - better to say that from a Scientific viewpoint - We don’t know at this time.
I didn’t call anyone’s idea a fairy tale. Solid reasoning from the natural to the supernatural and back is meaningless. There’s no need to go there. Just stay with the real.
Would someone winning five separate lotteries in the same day in the same order that they bought the tickets give you a clue that something was rigged?
(@Klax knows very well what I’m talking about, but others may not be familiar with Maggie’s testimony.)
I think you have been perhaps listening/reading too much to people like Lawrence Krauss - who misconstrue what is really meant within the theoretical physics community, even though what they say when clarified is correct. Modern Science does not deal with physics before the big bang and not even what we would call T = 0. It only comes into play a very short time after because of the Uncertainty Principle and Quantum Theory makes knowledge before impossible (at least in theory, but QT has been Science’s most successful model, so most Scientists talk about it as fact in ordinary conversation even though they know the nuances of what is being talked about). There is never really nothing nothing in modern physics as the late apologist Francis Schaeffer would say. The vacuum always has some non-finite probability of producing matter/energy from itself. This may seem like splitting hairs but it is the current way these things are thought about and they are quite different than what “nothing” meant in the past in physics.
1 Like
Wow! Why didn’t you tell me that’s in Maggie’s testimony. That she’s a 50 sigma lucky gambler.
Yes, “fairy tale” was an example, although it’s not hard to find real use of the term or equivalents.
Evolutionary creationism accepts the laws of nature as reasonably accurate. It acknowledges the possibility of rare miraculous events, but as far as science goes, it gives a similar picture of what we should see to a purely philosophically naturalistic position. But is that because the naturalist is inappropriately accepting theistic premises? Science depends on the premises that the universe is real, that it behaves in regular ways that we can understand, that we should be honest in reporting our findings, etc.
Essay: God, Occam, and Science may be of interest in regard to drawing conclusions from science.
The odds were more than astronomical, they were outside of space and time. And she is not the only one, but hers is an especially sweet condensation of the truth of God’s providential interventions on behalf of those who seek him. You do remember George – he had almost daily answers to specific prayers. You even said something about him being “incarnational”, or something to that effect.
Can you quantify reasonable? How inaccurate is QM? Or any other law of nature? What kinds of rare miraculous events does EC countenance any more than I do?
You can’t have it both ways. You seem to want there to be something “different” about EC science to distinguish it from what you are apparently thinking of as “materialistic science”; …but then you turn around and want to also say that “EC science isn’t accepted by mainstream science.”
That contradiction aside, the obvious answer is … since there is no difference between “EC science” and mainstream science, then of course it doesn’t suffer any distinction or general scientific animosity in general. Science, to the extent that it ‘accepts’ anything, will of course take on board all its practitioners with the usual caveats that healthy science in general is always seeking to overturn things in order to churn up new ground. Self skepticism is one of the distinguishing hallmarks of good science.
Who or what decides what is and what isn’t “mainstream science?”
I have asked this several times in regard of evolutionary theory. Is the Selfish Gene mainstream? Yes or No? When E.O. Wilson disagrees with the Selfish Gene does that put him out of the mainstream?
I am interested in Niche Construction Theory, which seems to be out of the “mainstream.” Why? How do evolution and ecology interact? Why is this not discussed?
I don’t think there is such a thing as ‘EC science’ distinguishable from mainstream science, because science is science and it has no mechanism for detecting anything but the material. God’s providence is something we can talk about, however (and deny, or not 
).
Elsewhere earlier:
2 Likes
You are putting words in my mouth. Either EC Science is different than ME Science or it is not. If it is not than just call it ME Science. If it is, than state exactly how it is. I have already indicated that EC Science, which I will will refer to as Theistic Evolution (TE), either doesn’t seem to clearly state how it is different than ME (or maybe isn’t from what you seem to be saying) or if it does (such as in the case of Francis Collins) is not accepted by mainstream science (his premises 2 and 6 would constitute a significant problem for mainstream science if they suggest a god explanation is necessary and the rest are consistent with mainstream science). Suggesting a god explanation for 2 and 6 is necessary would just be invoking a “god of the gaps” explanation
1 Like
Mainstream science involves methodological naturalism - so no “god of the gaps” explanations.
1 Like
If EC science is not detectable than why talk about it wrt science at all? Why not just deal with it like Stephen J. Gould suggested (NOMA). If people want to discuss it fine - but it is meaningless since only ME Science is viable when relating to mechanisms, processes, systems etc. as you suggest. However, the moment someone starts to include it or tries to smuggle it in as an explanation (such as premise 6 of Francis Collins premises) then it becomes problematic and unacceptable to mainstream science.
1 Like
The juxtaposition of the three terms, evolutionary creationism science, maybe confuses things, because the science aspect is pretty much contained in the first term, ‘evolutionary’. I am not particularly well-versed with an EC glossary, not that there is any such thing, but I found this, which may help with the thoughts underlying the question:
We do not propose a special Christian version of scientific facts…
1 Like
Just my opinion:
As far as science is concerned, they are the same. Same experiments, same methods, same professional conferences and literature, etc. The separate designation (to attempt to answer your question) is not to distinguish anything in regards to science, but in regards to theology. I use it to signal to my fellow theists that I affirm evolution as God’s secondary means of creating species diversity, and that it is/was never outside of his sovereign control.
1 Like
It is not. And certainly you are free to call it “materialistic” science if by that you mean that science can pretty much only investigate material phenomena. But what so many really mean by the phrase (hence my suspicions of its use) is that science is somehow inherently materialist philosophically (religiously) speaking. And to call it that is simply wrong - so I stay away from such potentially misleading labeling.
You’ll have to remind me what Collins’ premises ‘2’ and ‘6’ are again. Whatever they are, I can’t imagine them being something that mainstream science would have a problem with, since Collins prides himself on being attentive to science. Just because science generally wouldn’t make any use of Collins’ religious views (how could it?) doesn’t mean those views are somehow in conflict with understood science.
1 Like