First, I want to thank Digs and Rawlings for moving this thread. Now, hopefully, we can have a better discussion.
Dennis Prager | Jun 18, 2013
Townhall.com
Last week, in Nice, France, I was privileged to participate, along with 30 scholars, mostly scientists and mathematicians, in a conference on the question of whether the universe was designed, or at least fine-tuned, to make life, especially intelligent life. Participants -- from Yale, Princeton, Harvard, Berkeley and Columbia among other American and European universities -- included believers in God, agonistics and atheists. . . .
http://townhall.com/columnists/denn...sts-embrace-the-multiverse-n1621935/page/full
Now, for one, you probably shouldn't get your science from a non-scientist working at a non-scientific place. There are hundreds and thousands of journals out there that harbor the actual science, not like this.
The author makes the false claim of things being "right" implies fine-tuning. He says it could be
designed but he does not have grounds for this claim. Then the author claims "Unless one is a closed-minded atheist (there are open-minded atheists), it is not valid on a purely scientific basis to deny that the universe is improbably fine-tuned to create life, let alone intelligent life." Well, any scientist worth his weight in salt will tell you that, to be accepted, there must be evidence. There's not evidence of a designed universe, there's just evidence of A universe. Then, he addresses this by saying "he argument that science cannot suggest that intelligence comes from intelligence or design from an intelligent designer is simply a tautology. It is dogma masquerading as science." And, to help illustrate my point, to quote Lewis Wolpert (loosely) "I'm terribly sorry, but if you want to claim 'god' exists, you're actually going to have to present some evidence."
Then, we arrive at the multiverse. Now, the main problem with the multiverse is it teeters on non-scientific (see: Karl Popper and falsifiability). Is it possible to falsify a multiverse? Well, certain people think the WMAP cold spot helps show evidence of a parallel universe (
Source). Lee Smolin helped popularize (I don't know if he was the originator of) the term "cosmological natural selection." Of course, you also have String Theory, M-Theory, and Bubble Universe Theory and they all have their certain pros / cons.
It was, to me, quite ironic the author goes on to say "But there is not a shred of evidence of the existence of these other universes. Nor could there be since contact with another universe is impossible" as, earlier in his own article, he uses circular logic to posit his lack of evidence for his "god." Finally, he closes with "Honest atheists -- scientists and lay people -- must now acknowledge that science itself argues overwhelmingly for a Designing Intelligence" to which I would say "No, we must not, especially not from a non-scientist who fallaciously relies on pseudo-reason to deduce his claims."