In its April 12, 2003, edition, The New York Times carried an article
by the famous astrophysicist Paul Davies entitled "A Brief History
of the Multiverse." In this article, Prof. Davies attempts to defend
the claim that there may be an infinite number of universes, and our universe
chanced to be suitable for life, which is the latest argument in which
materialist thinkers have sought refuge in the face of the finely tuned
design in the universe.
We first need to briefly set out why materialists developed such an argument:
for thousands of years, the divine religions and philosophies that accept
the existence of God have maintained that there is purpose and design
in the universe, whereas materialists - those who claim that nothing exists
apart from matter - have rejected the existence of purpose and design.
A series of astronomical and physical discoveries in the 20th
century, however, revealed that the design in the universe was so clear
as to be undeniable. These discoveries revealed that at the moment the
universe began, all variables, from the speed of the Big Bang to the strength
of the four fundamental forces, from the structure of the elements to
that of the Solar System in which we live, were exactly as required to
support life. This tremendous discovery, which scientists in the 1970s
announced and described as the Anthropic Principle, clearly invalidated
the materialist argument for non-design.
In his article in The New York Times, Paul Davies summarises this fact
and admits the inevitable conclusion; the existence of God:
Why is nature so ingeniously, one might even say suspiciously,
friendly to life? What do the laws of physics care about life and consciousness
that they should conspire to make a hospitable universe? It's almost as
if a Grand Designer had it all figured out.
However, although regarding the design in the universe as proof of the
existence of God, Prof. Davies rejects this fact. In order to account
for the origin of the design in the universe, he resorts to the multiverse
theory, the last refuge, as we have already seen, of the materialists.
The Multiverse Theory
According to this theory, the universe we live in may be only one of
an infinite number of universes comprising a very much larger "multiverse."
In the materialists' view, it is quite normal for one or some of so many
universes to be suited to life.
Yet is there any scientific evidence to support this theory?
No. None at all. It is nothing more than speculation, a scenario cast
upon the waters.
The interesting aspect of Prof. Davies' article is that he attempts to
give the impression that there is in fact a large quantity of important
evidence in favour of the multiverse theory. The newspaper's spot caption
summarising the article is directed at just that end:
"This idea of multiple universes, or multiple realities,
has been around for centuries. The scientific justification for it, however,
Anyone seeing these introductory sentences without going on to read the
whole text may well imagine that the multiverse theory is based on concrete
scientific proof and that Prof. Davies' article goes on to mention these.
On the contrary, however, there is no such evidence and in fact the author
says not a word about this new scientific evidence, which he would happily
speak of if any such existed.
On the contrary, there are admissions in Prof. Davies' article that the
multiverse theory is only speculative. According to Prof. Davies, the
multiverse theory has been arrived at "by imagining." Moreover,
he says in reference to the theory that "credibility reaches a limit"
and that it "more and more must be accepted on faith."
In short, Prof. Davies' and all other materialists' interest in the multiverse
theory stems from personal preference rather than scientific proof. The
starting point of that personal preference is their unwillingness to accept
that the universe is the work of a Creator. Paul Davies states this fact
in his article, claiming that any account based on saying "God made
it that way" is not "satisfying" for a scientist.
The Aim of Materialistic Science
This question of "satisfaction" or the lack thereof is actually
the starting point of materialistic science. This view of science takes
as its aim the denial of the existence of God in accounting for nature
and the universe. As Benjamin Wiker has set out in considerable detail
in his important book Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists,
this intention has always laid behind the attempt to build a science that
ignores the existence of God, which stretches from Epicurus to Charles
Darwin and contemporary materialists. Materialists are desperately trying
to develop and prove theories which deny the existence of God, not because
science so demands, but because their world views and philosophies do.
Science itself, on the other hand, insistently and powerfully reveals
the truth that materialists seek to ignore: that the universe is full
of evidence of the Creator Who created it from nothing and so marvellously
designed all its content.
Proofs of the Existence of God
The multiverse theory is one of the theories put forward in order to
deny that truth, and is very definitely unfounded. The lack of any scientific
evidence for the theory, as Prof. Davies himself admits, reduces it to
the level of a belief. An unsubstantiated belief. Moreover, it is deceptive
for materialists to put forward such objections as "you believe that
God created the universe, we believe in many universes," in other
words to suggest that there is a sort of "equivalence" here,
1) The rational explanation for the design in the universe is an intelligent
designer. When you see a statue, you realise that there must also be a
sculptor. An argument such as "Since there are infinitely many stones
in the universe, this one just happened to take shape by chance,"
is of course quite irrational. In line with the logical rule known as
Occam's razor, which states that the most direct explanation of a subject
needs to be accepted, the origin of the fine tuning in the universe is
to be explained in terms of design rather than chance. (For details, see
Harun Yahya's The
Creation of the Universe.)
2) There is a great deal of scientific evidence for the existence of
God beyond just the fine-tuning in the universe. Like other materialists,
Paul Davies believes that Darwinism has resolved the problem of the origin
of living things, or else consoles himself with that assumption. The fact
is however, that Darwinism is now a discredited theory, and it has been
powerfully proven that there is intelligent design in the origin of living
things. This is a scientific demonstration of the fact that as well as
creating the universe with flawless balances and design, God also intervenes
in the universe which He has created. (For further details, see Harun
3) There is considerable evidence for the existence of God beyond the
positive sciences. Discoveries in many areas such as human psychology,
the evidence for the existence of the human soul, the divine texts, and
the miraculous information in the Qur'an, the last divine text, demonstrate
the existence of God and the fact that He created man and showed him the
true path by way of religion. (see Harun Yahya's article "The
Fall of Atheism")
Materialists on the other hand, are unable to find any other solution
in the face of the increasingly powerful evidence building up against
them than dreaming up new speculative theories. Just like Paul Davies,
who sets out by speaking of "new evidence for the multiverse theory,"
but who is unable to offer a single one.
What Prof. Davies needs to do is to re-evaluate the scientific findings
regarding the origin of the universe, but to do so not in the hope of
finding a "satisfying" conclusion from the point of view of
materialist prejudice, but of finding the ultimate truth. Then he might
see the truth of creation, which has so often been under his very nose,
and finally grasp the existence of God, his own Creator and the Creator
of all mankind.