The Multiverse Theory & the Problem of Anthropic Coincidences
Lenny's statement came in an interview with Amanda Geftler for New Scientist magazine and I call it, "ID blackmail" because it boils down to threatening a bunch of hard-line atheist physicsists with the false claim that creationists will be able to use the antrhopic principle to claim that goddidit... 'if you don't accept and believe-in my multiverse theory'.
The first sentence from the New Scientist article reads:
Ever since Albert Einstein wondered whether the world might have been different, physicists have been searching for a "theory of everything" to explain why the universe is the way it is.
But Einstein didn't buy into causality-lacking explanations for things, like uncertainty and infinities, and he didn't believe that the structure of the universe was ultimately random in nature, either, so how is it that this is possible within a scientific framework?
Answer number 4 of my last blog entry:
4) There was no absolute cosmic singularity, so the structure of our universe is perpetually embedded and inherent, no matter how many times that we have a big bang.
Which is all that we actually have evidence for...
Neither Lenny, nor the creationist are justified to leap beyond this most natural explanation without good reason to do so, so both are making the same unfounded leap of faith to conclude something that shouldn't even be an option, since there is no real precedence for leaping beyond nature and the observed universe in the first place.
The rational, natural, causality-responsible answer is that there is a thermodynamic mechanism which enables number 4 to be true, while explaining fine-tuning by way of first principles.
Evolution - Intelligent Design - Science - Religion - Education - Creationism - Astrophysics - Spagetti Monster - Cosmology