On August 11, 2008, Casey Luskin veers away from his usual posts of misunderstanding and misreporting of evolution to talk about a subject that is completely unrelated to evolution: the theory of the mulitverse. This theory states that there might be an infinite number of parallel universes that each differ by small variables. As he says:
this speculative idea was invented for the purpose of avoiding the conclusion that the cosmos was intelligently designed
Does Luskin really think that scientists (many of whom are religious) sit around thinking of ways to disprove God? Does Luskin have any proof that this is the case? Of course not. This technique of accusing scientists of trying to destroy God by making up theories is ridiculous and has been a talking point against evolutionary theory.
But how did the theory arise? I really don’t know, but it does seem to fall out from what we know of quantum mechanics and the inflation shortly after the big bang. Michael Clive Price wrote a FAQ explaining how the mulitverse actually resolves many paradoxes found in quantum mechanics.
the hypothesis was constructed in order to explain away the improbability of our universe’s physical laws, which are finely-tuned to permit the existence of advanced life.
Ignoring Luskin’s denial that the hypothesis came out scientific observations, another possibility that Luskin does not offer is that there is some fundamental property that forces the physical laws to be compatible with each other. This property would lead to the inevitable values that we currently measure.
Even more damaging to Luskin’s argument comes from a recent paper published in Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics. Fred Adams, a physicists from the University of Michigan have come up with new calculations that seem to indicate that nearly a 1/4 of combinations of physical constant values results in universes that contain the stars and planets.
Of course Luskin’s post about the multiverse has nothing to do with evolution. Evolutionary theory does not deal with the beginning of the universe. It doesn’t even deal with the beginnings of life on Earth. So why is Luskin posting this on an evolution blog? Because many ID proponents equate evolution with atheism. Therefore, any topic that equates science with atheism is a win for intelligent design.