So, why is the universe the way it is? It seems fine-tuned for life. Tweaking any number of universal constants by even small amounts would lead to a universe where life is not viable, or worse yet, a universe that collapses back in on itself. Other possibilities include universes that can not form heavy elements and many other undesirable outcomes if you want to be alive. So, why is our universe so unique?
Perhaps it isn’t unique. Perhaps there are many universes out there and ours is not special. If you have enough universes out there, it would be unsurprising to find one that is capable of sustaining life. In fact, if there are infinite universes out there, it’s just about inevitable that life would have to arise in at least one of them.
Some scientists claim that we are living in just one of many universes and they call this the multiverse theory. They claim that this is a scientific theory that explains away the fine tuning that is evident in our own universe. The problem is that it’s not testable. How are we going to test alternate universes when our scientific methods are constrained to this universe? These same scientists will tell you that ID is not scientific because it is not testable (a claim that I and others have refuted, but materialists still make the claim). So, ID is not science because it is untestable, but the multiverse theory is science even though it too is untestable? This is nothing more than a double standard.
Susskind, too, finds it “deeply, deeply troubling” that there’s no way to test the principle. But he is not yet ready to rule it out completely. “It would be very foolish to throw away the right answer on the basis that it doesn’t conform to some criteria for what is or isn’t science,” he says.
(Geoff Brumfiel, “Outrageous Fortune,” Nature, Vol 439:10-12 (January 5, 2006) (emphasis added).)
If an ID proponent made such a claim, you’d never see it printed in Nature.
How true. Even worse, if an ID proponent made such a claim, Darwinists would repeat the quote over and over until eternity as proof that ID is not science. Once again, we see the Darwinist’s worldview trumping all else.