A Naturalistic Fairy Tale – Part XXIX

The Multiverse

The Multiverse

Then did we, the Most High Scientist, through the use of calculations and formulas, imagine that there exists a great many more universes in the multiverse than we had previously imagined.  We did previously imagine through string theory that there are 10500 universes in the multiverse.  One of our Most High, Andrei Linde, did recently imagine through calculations that there are many more than 10500 universes in the multiverse (Praise Science).1 And let us first tell you why we do feel this is important.

“The idea that there is more than one universe, each with its own laws of physics, arises out of several different theories, including string theory and cosmic inflation. This concept of a “multiverse” could explain a puzzling mystery – why dark energy, the furtive force that is accelerating the expansion of space, appears improbably fine-tuned for life. With a large number of universes, there is bound to be one that has a dark energy value like ours.”

That pesky fine tuning might suggest to the less evolved of our species that universe may have been created or evidence hallmarks of design.  Of course we know that is ridiculous, as is attested to by our vivid imaginations.  And so, we endeavor to explain one “furtive” unmeasurable thing (dark energy) by invoking a larger quantity of unmeasurable things (even more universes).  Because if we do know anything at all, that is there is no design in the universe(s).  And we know you would have to agree, that with a great number of universes, “there is bound to be one that has a dark energy value like ours.”

So, we do now appeal to the god of chance, and evoke randomness in all its power and glory as is provided by quantum mechanics.  We do now calculate the existence of 1010^10,000,000 universes (Praise Science)!  We know how much you like large numbers, and have no doubt you are in awe of the large number we have invoked here.  We’ll also speculate a bit that an hypothetical observer determines how many universes can effectively exist because of quantum mechanical effects, but don’t be concerned, because that’s a really large number as well. We do hope you’ve been pleased by our Science and that you continue to be impressed by the power of randomness and imagination.  Rest assured, all of the appearance of design and fine tuning can, and will continue to be, explained away by chance and imagination.

1 Multiplying universes: How many is the multiverse? NewScientist, October 28, 2009.


The 10 Commandments of Materialistic Naturalism

Commenter Mike weighs in on mynym’s recent post. I thought it deserved a post of its own.

Another thing I find typical (and the thread you linked to is typical of this) is that it’s always the Darwinist who wants to bring up Creationism and Genesis in an ID debate. Usually this is accompanied by accusations of trying to enforce your “religion” on them. Sooner or later they will bring it up and accuse you. It’s practically inevitable. Then it’s always followed by some form of: “Oh Yeah? Well, my god is better than your god! Watch me crawl back into her womb now so I don’t have to listen to you”.

Darwinists have no problem allowing themselves to admit “design” and “purpose”, as long as it’s attributed to Mommy Nature, and not any other god. The fact is that evolution is a theological pursuit. It is a creation myth, not science. That’s why it’s defended with such religious fervor, and why blasphemers are to be condemned:

The 10 Commandments of Materialistic Naturalism:

I am Mommy Nature, Who Self-Ascended from the Great Nothing, who created all that is seen and unseen (though the unseen existeth not), who affirms your randomly-generated illusion of the miniscule portion of reality you think you perceive.


1. Thou Shalt Love Me with all thy brain synapse firings and chemical reactions (for that is what Love is)

2. Thou Shalt recognize No gods before Me

3. Thou Shalt make an idol of DNA, and shall worship thy genome as an omnipotent agent of “progress”

4. Thou Shalt refer to me as “nurturing” and “clever”, and shall attribute “purpose” to me, though I do have No mind or being

5. Thou Shalt Not attribute to thyself any rationale for rationality, for thou were formed blindly, and by accident

6. Thou Shalt live a Lie, as if concepts of Mind do have inherent meaning, and are not the chemical processes they are, for thou art matter only

7. Thou Shalt believe in Non-Existence, and shall enthusiastically embrace it upon thy Death

8. Thou Shalt cite thy Imagination as Evidence of My Work, and shall do this by drawing fancy pictures of hypothetical ape-like creatures connected by arrows

9. Thou Shalt Believe in Chance, and not refer to it as Ignorance

10. Thou Shalt Not Believe in Moral Absolutes, yet thou shalt also refer to this belief as Good

Behold, I shall send you Messiah, the Holy Scientist who will reveal all, Redeeming all believers and Condemning all Blasphemers to lobotomies!

Arguments about knowledge rooted in brains shaped by ignorance.

Over at AiG Busted:

Someone made the argument that buildings are analogous to the design in living things which drew a common reply:

“No, buildings are something we routinely observe human beings building, so there’s no question that they were designed.”

I wondered why there’s no question so I asked:

Why do you say that they were designed if the biological brains that supposedly designed them have their roots in blind, unthinking processes? You claim to recognize the “design” of “intelligent” beings when evolution easily explains the illusion of intelligence in terms of unthinking, unknowing processes.


I’m not sure why some treat self-evident truths that are evident in being an intelligent being as glaringly obvious while also arguing that the “universal acid” of Darwinism can and must be used to “explain” away all intelligence in the name of science/knowledge. If science is shifted away from the pursuit of the truth and instead towards the pursuit of “natural” explanations then all knowledge must be explained in terms of ignorant and blind processes. Only people who are willing to lose their minds will agree with the original shift away from the search for truth.

More censorship?

(A controversial documentary that supports the theory of intelligent design will be screened Sunday at the University of Southern California, after its original premiere at the California Science Center was cancelled.)

“Darwin’s Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record” was canceled for what center officials ascribed to unspecified “contract reasons” but what film backers termed an act of censorship.

Daily News

Human Evolution? The Ardipithecus Ramidus

Recently, a number of publications came out on fossils that were discovered in the early 1990s of a creature named Ardipithecus ramidus. So, what does this find tell us about human evolution? AiG weighs in on the matter.1

Despite claims of its evolutionary significance, one of the scientists who studied Ardi noted, “It’s not a chimp. It’s not a human.” That is, instead of looking like the hypothesized “missing link” (with both chimpanzee and human features), Ardi’s anatomy—as reconstructed by the scientists—shows it to have been distinct from other apes as well as from humans. The researchers have consequently shunned the notion of a missing link: “It shows that the last common ancestor [between humans and] chimps didn’t look like a chimp, or a human, or some funny thing in between,” explained Penn State University paleontologist Alan Walker (who was not part of the study).

The first question creationists have to answer is just what Ardi is. We can quickly eliminate important things that it isn’t: it’s not a human fossil, nor is it a complete fossil. In fact, even referring to “it” is deceptive, because Ardi is a partial skeleton put together based on a smattering of bones linked with at least 36 A. ramidus individuals. Dated at 4.4 million years old, the first bones were found in the early 1990s in Ethiopia. The delay in publishing an analysis was in part due to the poor state of the remains. “It took us many, many years to clean the bones in the National Museum of Ethiopia and then set about to restore this skeleton to its original dimensions and form; and then study it and compare it with all the other fossils that are known from Africa and elsewhere, as well as with the modern age,” said the University of California–Berkeley’s Tim White.

The post goes on to say that the researchers don’t even know if the creature was a human ancestor or just an extinct species of ape. The post concludes with:

Given the number and scope of the papers presented this week on Ardi, it will take some time before creationists are confident in our conclusions on Ardi and her kin. Based on our first look, however, the facts seem solidly behind the idea that Ardi was a quadrupedal ape with relatively little in common with humans (i.e., no more than most apes); the key basis for the alleged Ardi–human link (which even the authors are hesitant to confirm) is the idea that it walked upright—an idea that even evolutionists have criticized. And we can’t forget that all of these conclusions are inferred from digital reconstructions and fallible reconstructions of bones that were in very bad shape.

Without having a live “Ardi” to observe, scientists will only ever be able to come to probabilistic conclusions about its characteristics. As far as we’re concerned, the evolutionary “threat” to creationists from Ardi is no more than that posed by Ida: viz., none.

(1). http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/10/03/news-to-note-10032009

Colbert v. Dawkins – Priceless

The Colbert Report Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Richard Dawkins
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Michael Moore