A picture supposedly of a fairies dancing before a young girl is examined for authenticity in a scene from "FairyTale: A True Story"

Cosmologists faced with the difficult problems of the fine tuning of the universe and the origin of the singularity have resorted to the fairytale of a "multiverse" to maintain a materialistic worldview.

In 1917 in Cottingley, England, 16 and 9 year old cousins Elsie Write and Frances Griffiths believed in fairies and wanted others to believe too. As evidence they produced pictures (viewable here) of what they purported to be real live fairies.  By today's photoshop and CGI standards, the fairies in the pictures appear to be  simplistic two dimensional hand colored drawings. But a photo expert of the day declared the negatives had not been tampered with, and the pictures caught the eye of writer Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of famed fictional detective Sherlock Holmes. Less widely known is Doyle was a believer in the paranormal¹, and his beliefs included the existence of fairies. Doyle took the photographs as authentic.

Years later, the girls, now women, confessed the photos had been faked. The question is why had so many, including one so obviously intelligent as the creator of Sherlock Holmes been so quick to believe a fanciful story with little or no evidence? Frances, nailed it on the head in a 1985 interview when she said, "I never even thought of it as being a fraud – it was just Elsie and I having a bit of fun and I can't understand to this day why they were taken in – they wanted to be taken in."²

"They wanted to be taken in." In other words, they wanted to believe. I don't fault them or anyone for that. Humans are designed to live by faith, and thus it's natural to want to believe in something. (This includes atheists, evolutionists and scientists who claim to have no faith.³) The problem comes when you believe based on flimsy or no evidence. That's always the problem with a fairytale - there is little or no evidence. This also distinguishes the Christian faith - for which there is a plethora of  evidences from a variety of fields of study -  from fairytales.  Furthermore, there are a number of sites dedicated to documenting the evidence.⁴

Segue to the 1980's. The field of cosmology is in crisis. Scientists realize there are a number of problems with the Big Bang theory. (For a few details see my previous article here.)  Einstein had died in 1955 without completing what he had hoped would be his magnus opus: a completed Theory of Everything (TOE) - a single, elegant, unified theory that explained everything about the universe, including the current holy grail in cosmology: the unexplainable (in scientific terms) origin of the universe. The current explanation - the singularity that is itself the big bang - has been recognized as totally inadequate, contradicting the laws of physics. As physicist Michio Kaku put it:

"The fundamental problem of cosmology, is that the laws of physics as we know them break down at the instant of the big bang. Well people say what's wrong with that? What's wrong with having the laws of physics collapse? Well for physicists this is a disaster. All our lives we've dedicated to the proposition that the universe obeys knowable laws. Laws that can be written down in the language of mathematics. And here we have the centerpiece of  the universe itself, a missing piece beyond physical law." ⁵

To make matters worse, science had discovered that the universe is finely tuned. In an article for the Discovery Center Institute for science and culture, distinguished follow and author Jay Richards explains what fine tuning is:

“Fine-tuning” refers to various features of the universe that are
necessary conditions for the existence of complex life. Such features include the initial conditions and “brute facts” of the universe as a whole, the laws of nature or the numerical constants present in those laws (such as the gravitational force constant), and local features of habitable planets (such as a planet’s distance from its host star).

The basic idea is that these features must fall within a very narrow
range of possible values for chemical-based life to be possible."⁶

In that article Richards, who prefers to take a conservative approach to fine tuning parameters, lists 21 features of the cosmos that are fine tuned. (As opposed to 200 as the number of parameters that Metaxas cites as finely tuned in his popular article.⁷)  Richard's  conclusion: the universe is fine tuned and thus designed.

On the other hand, British cosmologist and astronomer royal Martin Rees examines in depth 6 of those finely tuned parameters in his book "Just Six Numbers." Though the evidence for fine tuning that results in a world like ours is quite apparent, he refuses to believe that means it points to a designer who fine tuned it. Instead he chooses to believe in a solution as fanciful as fairies, and having the same amount of evidence (none): the multiverse:

"These six numbers constitute a 'recipe' for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be 'untuned', there would be no stars and no life. Is this tuning just a brute fact, a coincidence? Or is it the providence of a benign Creator? I take the view that it is neither. An infinity of other universes may well exist where the numbers are different. Most would be stillborn or sterile."⁸

Before we pause to consider the same question - take note of the supposed magnitude of the multiverse: "an infinite number of other universes." This is not unique to Rees. Most if not all multiverse evangelists are preaching the "infinite number of universes" message.⁹  And now back to the question: Why is Rees, like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle so quick to believe a fanciful story with little or no evidence? (And in the case of the multiverse - it's no evidence.)  The answer appears to be the same: he wants to believe. He wants to be taken in. Or more appropriately, he does not want to believe the obvious alternative - the universe is finely tuned because it was designed by, as he puts a "benign Creator".

The multiverse is not the only fanciful story cosmologists want to believe in. They have no explanation for the Horizon problem, so they made up the fanciful story  of Inflation. They have no answer to where the singularity came from, or why the universe is finely tuned, so they made up the fanciful story of the multiverse. Are you seeing a pattern here? When cosmologists get in a bind with their pet  materialistic theory, instead of coming up with plausible explanations backed by evidence; they hold to implausible explanations with little or no evidence.

They hold to such theories because materialistic theories, however impossible they may be, do not invoke a supernatural being. Thus cosmology is no longer after the truth, it's after finding theories that exclude God.  I submit their refusal to acknowledge the divine is why it's as Frances said: they want to be taken in by their fanciful stories which they call "scientific" so they can continue to deny the obvious hand of the creator.

Are Inflation and the Multiverse Really without Evidence?

Regarding inflation, I've already made a case that the theory is fatally flawed in the previous article, Which theory has the fatal flaw - the Big Bang or Creation. Let me add to it the conclusions by experts in the field who buy neither the theory nor the evidences the inflation merchants are selling:

Summarizing well respected mathematician and physicist, Sir Roger Penrose of the University of Oxford:

"Penrose's shocking conclusion, though, was that obtaining a flat universe without inflation is much more likely than with inflation – by a factor of 10 to the googol (10 to the 100) power!"^[105][106] Together with Anna Ijjas and Abraham Loeb, he wrote articles claiming that the inflationary paradigm is in trouble in view of the data from the Planck satellite.^{[124][125]" 10}

Consider also this critique from physicist John Earman and philosopher Jesús Mosterín:

In 1999, John Earman and Jesús Mosterín published a thorough critical review of inflationary cosmology, concluding, "we do not think that there are, as yet, good grounds for admitting any of the models of inflation into the standard core of cosmology."^{[121] 11}

As for the multiverse, it remains a flight of fancy in search of evidence. Physicists have come up with four different types of multiverses - some where the laws of physics are the same as in our own universe, some where they are not and can be literally anything. In all cases, the number of universes remains the same: infinite. However to prove any of these versions of the multiverse scenario, and call it science, they must come up with more than flights of fancy masquerading as theory. They need to come up with evidence. To find that evidence they turn to particle colliders like the Tevitron at Fermilab in Illinois, where they are smashing protons and anti-protons together to perform a "missing energy search." The theory is they should be able account for all mass and energy that comes out of the collision. If not, the supposition is that it escaped into an extra dimension.  Joe Lykken of Fermilab says this about the experiment:

"Right now this detector is looking for evidence of extra dimensions. If there are extra dimensions of a certain size and shape, this experiment will find them." (emphasis his)¹²

Which means to date, they have not found any extra dimensions (much less entire universes). And suppose they do find extra dimensions.  Does that prove an entire universe? Further and more importantly, would a single extra dimension prove an infinite number of universes as multiverse proponents propose?  No - that would be a huge leap of faith akin to finding a deserted island and thinking it's deserted because the people you supposed lived there had technology you supposed could teleport them off of it.  And so you suppose those teleporters teleported them to a starship you suppose is waiting in orbit to take them to an exoplanet you suppose they can reach that you suppose will support life.

Such a scenario is quite obviously wishful thinking; and yet scientists are engaging in the same type of wishful thinking regarding the multiverse. Why are they willing to take such a blind leap of faith? Because they need the multiverse to explain away fine tuning in the universe. An infinite number of universes is to cosmology what billions and billions of years is to evolution: a transparent attempt to deny clearly apparent design. Cosmology uses the multiverse to deny design in the universe; and Evolution uses billions and billions of years to deny design in living organisms. They are both blatant attempts to replace design with chance. But to realize those chances, in cosmology you need lots of universes; and in evolution, you need lots of time. Which is why evolutionists fight against a young universe. And it's why you'll likely begin to see cosmologists fight vehemently against a single universe in favor of a multiverse.

There is a simpler explanation for extra dimensions that cosmologists would rather not consider. The discovery of an extra dimension could just as well be evidence of the heavenly realm, as described in the Bible.¹³ (Thus the discovery of extra dimensions is no threat to Christian theology.) Of course scientists would never allow that consideration or investigation, because the whole point of the multiverse (and evolution) is to eliminate the need for God and his heaven. Regardless of what might be found in the future, the fact remains at this point in time there is no scientific evidence whatsoever of extra-dimensions or a multiverse.

How is belief in Angels different from that in Fairies?

Some will say that Christians are just as gullible because they believe in angels; and belief in angels is no different from belief in fairies. True, Christians believe in angels, but such belief is not akin to belief in fairies. On the contrary, belief in fairies is faith without evidence. Biblical faith is quite different. "The biblical definition of faith is not believing in someone who is not really there, effectively believing in something that doesn't really exist. No, the Biblical definition of faith is responding to reality. It is a response to reality."¹⁴ Thus belief in angels is more like belief that there are rings around Saturn and Uranus. You may not have seen them personally, but you believe because you have the reliable recorded testimony of those who have seen them (through telescopes) as well as pictures like the pictures of Saturn from Cassini.

What evidence is there of angels? As we have the recorded testimonies of those who have seen the rings around Saturn, we likewise have many reliable recorded testimonies of  those who have seen angels. And we have the physical evidence of the workings of Angels. Let me give you two.

Who Moved the Stone?
As I point out in the article AD Apologetics Part 2 - Jesus' Triumphant Resurrection, the great stone that covered the grave of Christ is a great, silent witness to the supernatural happenings at the grave. If one insists that an angel did not move the stone, you're left with an insurmountable problem: Who, then  did move it and remove the body of Jesus? There was no one individual or group of people who had motive, opportunity and the ability to move the massive stone in front of the burial place of Jesus and remove the body, without being stopped or seen by the guards. Those who doubt the Bible's claim that an angel moved the stone must come up with a feasible explanation of who overcame armed guards, moved a heavy stone, and absconded with the dead weight of a dead body without anyone catching or seeing them - and how they did it.

Who Released the Apostles from Prison?
The Bible records after the resurrection of Jesus, the high priests and his associates had the apostles arrested and thrown in jail. After that, scripture records the following angelic activity:

19 But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the jail and brought them out. 20 "Go, stand in the temple courts," he said, "and tell the people the full message of this new life." 21 At daybreak they entered the temple courts, as they had been told, and began to teach the people. When the high priest and his associates arrived, they called together the Sanhedrin--the full assembly of the elders of Israel--and sent to the jail for the apostles. 22 But on arriving at the jail, the officers did not find them there. So they went back and reported, 23 "We found the jail securely locked, with the guards standing at the doors; but when we opened them, we found no one inside." 24 On hearing this report, the captain of the temple guard and the chief priests were puzzled, wondering what would come of this. 25 Then someone came and said, "Look! The men you put in jail are standing in the temple courts teaching the people."
Acts 5.19-25
 

An angel, as depicted in the series "AD - The Bible Continues",
frees the apostles from prison (click to view)

Those who claim an angel didn't free them from jail, must explain how the apostles managed to escaped a locked jail, get past armed guards, and do so without breaking the locks. And then having escaped, deciding to  appear the next day in the temple courts - not far from where they had escaped from. (Not a wise escape plan if "escape" was indeed the goal.) This is an occasion where seeing a dramatized version such as from the above scene from AD is entertaining, but reading the original is of critical importance, because you'll note the AD version takes the artistic license to depict the locks being miraculously broken, when the bible is clear that a bigger miracle happened: the apostles escaped prison without breaking the locks, without help from outside humans, and without being noticed by the guards. And in obedience to the command from God as delivered by the angel, they appeared in the temple courts to preach the gospel.

So once again it's a matter of evidence. There is much credible evidence for angels; there is no credible evidence of fairies -the Cottingley fairy forgeries being no exception. 

Adolf Hitler is often quoted as having said:

“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”

Cosmologists have a big lie. And they're telling it frequently so you'll believe. Don't fall for it.  God has said:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth
Gen 1.1

Hitler merely wanted world domination. Cosmologists who are trying to convince you God didn't do what he said, may not be after your soul, but if you fall for their fanciful lies and thus forsake God, that will in fact be the result. And you'll spend your eternity in a place you will forever regret, where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matt 13.42

Duane Caldwell | posted 8/10/2015

back