There is another incredibly stupid idea going around besides evolution; and that is this idea of what is called a “multi-verse”. We are all familiar with the word, “universe”; and we are accustomed to thinking that the word means “everything that exists” within a certain sphere. We speak of a “universe of discourse”, and of “universal principles”, etc. The etymology shows that it refers to a unified, but diverse system. When the word is used without a qualifier, it means simply, everything that exists (God excluded) – the natural world, or the whole cosmos – what Christians call “the Creation”. So what is a “multi-verse”? It is another kind of universe, containing our universe and a very large number of other universes.
It is speculated that there may be a virtually infinite number of these universes, each of them slightly different from our own, but so many that some of them would invariably be quite similar to our own. It is claimed that this is mathematically possible; and therefore may be really possible. It is claimed that quantum mechanics explains how this might be. It is claimed that this would explain why our universe seems to be designedly “fine-tuned” to support the existence of all life in general, and of human beings in particular. (It only seems so, we are told, because when a universe came along that was perfect for life, life naturally happened!)
It is the last point that explains where this idea came from. Evolutionists, confronted with the fact that life requires a very precisely-adjusted environment that could not possibly arise by chance (even assuming that “chance” could really be the cause of anything, which is idiotic), have fled to the idea of a multiplicity of universes to try to escape the heat. Nothing shows the intellectual bankruptcy of evolution as clearly as the desperate and often dishonest measures its proponents resort to when confronted with real facts.
What is so wrong with this theory? Well, first, the “Universe” (the one that we know exists) contains everything that exists, excepting only the transcendent God who created it. So there can only be one, by definition. The Universe, like God, is unique. The “multi-verse” fantasy requires a re-definition of the word to mean something totally different, something that can exist in multiples. This re-definition is done without explanation or justification, or even a footnote to mark it! It would be more honest for them to say that they imagine that our “universe” is not a Universe at all, but just a very small part of all the things that exist; just one of very many such “worlds” that make up an even vaster “multi-verse”. Sensible people will never fall for this “bait and switch”.
The second problem with the multi-verse theory is the contradiction involved in rejecting creationism on the basis that there is no evidence for it, and then advancing an alternative theory for which there is no evidence.
The third problem is the contradiction involved in rejecting creationism because it’s not testable, while proposing a theory which, if true, could never be tested. For each of these “universes” is assumed to be wholly self-contained, independent, and insulated from all the others. Only our own world can ever be observed by us.
A fourth problem is the contradiction inherent in assuming that logic, mathematics, quantum mechanics, relativity, and all the physical laws are the same in all these alternative universes; while yet maintaining that causal randomness is ultimate everywhere. Does that make sense to you?
The fifth problem is that this futile theory merely pushes back certain ultimate questions which they can’t answer, rather than answering them: such questions as, how complex order arose from blind causes, how life arose from non-living substances, how matter and energy and all that is came from nothing, where intelligence came from, why there are physical laws and mathematics and logic – questions like that.
The sixth glaring weakness of this theory is that it violates the axiom called “Occam’s razor”. This axiom states that the simplest explanation for any fact is the most probable. It is sometimes stated this way, ”You shall not multiply entities without necessity.” The theory in question not only multiplies entities on a scale never thought of before; but it does this in the face of a simple and completely adequate alternative explanation that it irrationally refuses to credit.
The seventh dumb thing is the futility of trying to escape the fact that evolution is mathematically so improbable that it may be said to be impossible, by inventing a scheme that is even more improbable. For they now need to account for the origin of all those “universes” – not just one! And consider that in every one of those imagined universes (assuming, as they do, that the same physical laws apply there as here) the same problems remains that make evolution impossible here: order does not come from blind causes, matter and energy do not spontaneously appear, life does not come from non-life, consciousness is inexplicable by random processes. So instead of making evolution more probable or possible or even necessary, they have only deepened their dilemma.
But maybe the dumbest thing of all is that they know it’s not true; and yet they want to believe it anyway. The Bible says:
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…” (Romans 1:18-22)
Howard Douglas King
Revised October 27, 2014