You have probably heard of the multi-universe theory, but unless you have a keen interest in cosmology, that is the study of beginnings, you most likely have not given it much thought as it sounds so preposterous, even like science fiction or fantasy. It is, however, a very real postulate put forth primarily by theoretical physicists who consider it a real possibility and for some even very likely! For that reason we should give it some serious thought.

So what is the multi-universe postulate, also referred to omniverse, multiverse, metaverse, parallel universe, and alternate universe? Although there are several variations of the story, multiverse proponents believe there are or have been an infinite number of universes besides our own. Keep in mind there is absolutely no scientific evidence for this, and by its very nature, the multiverse theory is not subject to scientific method. So, in reality it can’t be a serious scientific theory.

So why has this seemingly crazy idea been put forth? Scientists for years have understood how very unlikely it is for the existence of our universe. The physical laws we find and the various constants we observe in our universe must be exactly what they are or we would not be here, as neither would our universe. There are many of these constants including the gravitational constant, the speed of light, Planck’s constant, the strong molecular force, the weak molecular force, etc. Astronomer Hugh Ross says there are at least 35 constants that must be finely tuned in order for us to exist. The slightest variation in any of these constants or laws would result in a universe that would not support life as it exists today. Many have tried to calculate the odds against our existence, including Dr. Ross, but let’s just say there are less atoms in the universe than there is the likelihood for our existence. Yet here we are.

Some have used the anthropic principle to describe our existence, but this is not explanatory. The anthropic principle states that no matter how unlikely our existence is, the fact that it’s happened is enough proof that it could happen. It is sort of like trying to explain our own personal existence. We are all winners of a giant lottery, so to speak, yet we exist. The factors that had to align themselves just right for any one individual to exist are mind boggling, nonetheless we do.  But again, this is not explanatory at all. For most of us this fine-tuning shouts an intelligent mind behind it all, but since most scientists believe in scientism (which is no more than atheism dressed up in a lab coat), an intelligent designer is just not an acceptable explanation even if it is by far the most likely one.

Thus, comes the multi-universe idea. You see, no matter how unlikely it is for our existence, if there is an infinite number of universes to “choose from,” one of them would be likely to support life. It is therefore the impossibility of the existence of our universe that gave birth to the multi-universe concept.

Bernard Car has said, “If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.” It thus allows scientists a way of explaining almost anything, otherwise the only thing that makes sense is intelligent design. The multiverse proponents will not deny our universe, and life for that matter, has the appearance of design, they just will not or cannot accept an intelligence behind it all.

I am reminded of what King David said in Psalms 14:1, “The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.” Further, the Apostle Paul in Romans 1:18-20, writes, “For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known to God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things He made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so they are without excuse.”

So no matter how impossible the existence of our universe is, metaverse seems to negate any concept of intellect or design being behind it. This has led to some rather strange ideas popping up. One now popular theory, one supported by Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, is that we are living in a giant computer and our universe is nothing more than a simulation (what is not said is who has programmed the computer?). Others suppose our universe is a hologram! The late Stephen Hawking fell back on the multiverse theory when he came to realize that the Big Bang Theory he proposed implied a beginning and a beginning implied a cause or intelligence. Even evolutionists have accepted the multi-universe concept to some degree. Eugene Koonin understands the virtual impossibility of RNA synthesizing itself by purely naturalistic means. His explanation? You guessed it, multi-universe. If there is an infinite amount of universes, one would exist where RNA would eventually synthesize itself and we are in it.

The problem is, when you accept multi-universe you are now leaving the sphere of logic. Occam’s Razor, a principle most naturalistic scientists would even accept, except when it comes to cosmology, says “The simplest solutions are more likely to be the correct ones than the complex solutions.” Obviously ,multiverse proponents throw Occam’s Razor out the window. The materialist cannot accept anything but a naturalistic cause for our universe, and for this reason multiverse was born.

There are however many scientists that view multiverse for what it is, a big copout. Physicist Mark Burhmann believes it takes at least as much faith to believe multiverse as it does to believe in God. Paul Steinhardt has argued no experiment can rule out a theory if that theory provides for all possible outcomes, which is exactly the case with multiverse.

Multiverse then is mystical, fanciful, and not in the least scientific. When you have to rely on infinite numbers of anything as an explanation, you are now living in the realm of irrationality.

So, is there a better or more logical explanation for our universe? Yes! Just as a woman cannot give birth to herself, so cannot nature come into existence by itself. For this reason, the universe must have been supernatural with supreme intelligence behind it. But is there is evidence for this? Again, yes! None of us were present when the universe had its beginnings (an argument by the way used by God towards Job), yet, as we saw earlier, the evidence for God’s creation is there. The Bible firmly confirms in Genesis that God created the heavens and the Earth and everything in them, including all the laws and constants required for life. And most scientists before Darwin understood this and great science was practiced by them believing in a creator. Scientists such as Newton, Kepler, Pasteur, Maxwell, Agassiz, and many, many more were believers in a divine creator. They understood that nature shouts for a designer. And many scientists of our time continue to believe this.

Darwin then came along with the publication of the Origins of the Species and scientists now started turning more and more to naturalism, even though Darwin had no evidence for a molecules-to-man explanation for life. Darwin proposed natural selection and survival of the fittest could explain the variation of life but he also felt it could even explain how life began. He felt all life had a common beginning and his ideas are still primarily held by the vast number of naturalistic scientists. In fact, natural selection and survival of the fittest do a great job in explaining the variation in kinds, but they do not and cannot explain macroevolution, or, in other words, changes from one kind to another. It couldn’t do it 150 years ago and it still cannot do it today. We now understand quite the opposite. Natural selection and survival of the fittest actually limits variation. This is very eloquently discussed by Michael Behe in his new book, “Darwin Devolves.” In it, he points out evolution is a great way for living things to adapt to their surroundings but it has significant limits. In other words, kinds do not change into other kinds. This is why the fossil records have never confirmed Darwinian evolution, it simply didn’t happen.

Nonetheless scientists cannot let intelligent design get into the door, thus they are stuck with this very silly idea of multi-universe. You see, once again, if there is an infinite number of universes, there had to be one where evolution would work. What a huge copout. The Bible, in Hebrews 3:4, says God has built all things. In Proverbs 1:7 we read, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.” Paul writes to Timothy, in First Timothy 6:20, to avoid “profane babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge.” Paul also warns, in Romans 1:22, that there are those who profess to be wise but in fact are fools.

I would ask, is our society better or worse for this naturalistic, materialistic philosophy? I would argue it is not. You see, if there is no “designer” then there is no God and there is no accountability. Genocide, infanticide, adultery, murder, thievery, virtually any sin you can think of are therefore difficult to condemn, and frankly, those who truly understood materialism understand this. Materialists would argue, our minds are only an accumulation of molecules and atoms. For this reason there is really, to them, no such thing as mind or even free will at all. Of course, this is a bit self-refuting because the naturalist trying to convince you there is no mind is in fact using their mind to do so! What kind of logic is that? It is contradictory.

Michael Behe has written, “Abandon a facet of rationality, the ability to recognize the work of other minds, irrationality rushes in.” Scientists should be involved in finding the best explanation for everything, not just the most naturalistic. God transcends time and space. He has offered us ample proof for His existence and has transmitted it by His word. Peter says, in First Peter 1:25, that His word will “live forever.” It is high time scientists accept this and throw away these fanciful ideas of multi-universe.

By Bo Kirkwood, M.D.