Even the Unmeasurable Points to Design

IT’S not just the nature of dark matter that’s a mystery – even its abundance is inexplicable. But if our universe is just one of many possible universes, at least this conundrum can be explained.(1)

Indeed. It’s a conundrum for an anti-design perspective. From an ID and theological perspective, it’s not surprising that even the quantity of this material points to design. The notion from the anti-design perspective is that “common sense doesn’t work.” Fine. Sometimes it doesn’t. But, I don’t think people even have to rely on “common sense” to support a design perspective. You can rely on logic, philosophy, and scientific reasoning to support a design perspective. It just happens that these perspectives can also correspond with “common sense.” The same cannot be said for an anti-design perspective.

The total amount of dark matter – the unseen stuff thought to make up most of the mass of the universe – is five to six times that of normal matter. This difference sounds pretty significant, but it could have been much greater, because the two types of matter probably formed via radically different processes shortly after the big bang. The fact that the ratio is so conducive to a life-bearing universe “looks like a tremendous coincidence”, says Raphael Bousso at the University of California, Berkeley.

It does look like a “tremendous coincidence.” Thankfully, purely naturalistic scientists have an out. Of course it can’t be verified. Of course it can’t be measured. But it doesn’t start with a “g” or even a “G.” Therefore, it makes rational sense, and is science.

Freivogel focused on one of the favoured candidate-particles for dark matter, the axion. Axions have the right characteristics to be dark matter, but for one problem: a certain property called its “misalignment angle”, which would have affected the amount of dark matter produced in the early universe. If this property is randomly determined, in most cases it would result in a severe overabundance of dark matter, leading to a universe without the large-scale structure of clusters of galaxies. To result in our universe, it has to be just the right value.

In a multiverse, each universe will have a random value for the axion’s misalignment angle, giving some universes the right amount of dark matter needed to give rise to galaxies, stars, planets and life as we know it.

Praise Science that they have an alternative explanation. “So what?” if it is unmeasurable, untestable, and unfalsifiable. It doesn’t involve any kind of “G” word (a scientific explicative). It sounds good, and appeals to Science Fiction; therefore, it’s science.

(1) http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026854.800-universes-dark-matter-mix-is-just-right-for-life.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

Advertisements

3 Responses

  1. “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures…For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen…And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind…” (Romans 1: 19-28)

  2. […] (results), as opposed to mere theories (no results). It sounds like this neurosurgeon has some common sense mixed in with his […]

  3. Thankfully, purely naturalistic scientists have an out. Of course it can’t be verified. Of course it can’t be measured.

    Unfortunately the near total absence of scientia/knowledge in certain viewpoints will not matter for as long as most scientists believe in the mythology of the Enlightenment and Progress because given such a view God is viewed as a science/knowledge stopper or a “gap” in knowledge which will inevitably be filled in by further progress in knowledge and so on. History shows that theism is deeply associated with science and knowledge as we know it, yet many scientists think that theism can be separated from scientific knowledge and from there go on to conclude that theism stops science. As long as people think that it seems that any form of hypothetical goo can be advanced in the name of science because it may lead to Progress but theism must always be rejected because it stops Progress. After all, many theists will agree with forms of hypothetical goo advanced in the name of science and Progress because Progress may void such evidence in the future. And it’s true, it may. Although if theists harnessed faith in Progress to the same extent it could just as easily be argued that Progress in knowledge will always tend toward providing evidence favorable to theism. “We may not know now but in the future science will inevitably show that theism is true and atheists will be a relic of the past.” Etc.etc.

    If you can never admit to theism because of the view of Progress typical to atheists throughout history then you may be utterly blind to what the evidence actually shows. The fact that theistic claims have been refuted in the past or may be refuted in the future given progress doesn’t change the fact that by the time that atheists (and theists who fear Progress) are done their views still tend to neglect a rational view of the empirical evidence in favor hypothetical goo and imaginary forms of evidence.

    Unfortunately I think it is wrong to set naturalism against theism while searching for signs of intelligence in singularities. It’s true that God may design a sort of naturalistic matrix within which to communicate certain messages or signs of design but naturalism itself only comes about within the context of design. Aristotle essentially pointed out the necessity of an unchanged Changer and he believed in an eternal Cosmos that did not begin with a singularity. It seems to me that the same conclusions could be come to in the biological world as the physical world, although there may ultimately be evidence of biological singularities which fall outside a supposed regularity like “natural selection.” Biologists haven’t demonstrated the same level of knowledge as physicists, they have not really specified and verified regularities in biology so there it seems that there is more room for atheists and arguments rooted in “chance”/ignorance there.

    Instead of asking, as most naturalists do, what past events “cause” the Cosmos as we see it now it is just as relevant to ask what causal patterns are the foundation of everything at present. And after all, if we are always seeking past events to explain the world around us we may begin to imagine things about the past based on naturalism while losing a more rational focus rooted in studying things which can be observed empirically and understood by the intellect at the moment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: