|
In the inflationary Big Bang scenario, the Universe (or
megauniverse) includes an infinity of domains, each a universe unto itself,
with its own values of the fundamental constants, perhaps even differing laws
of nature. In Lindes quantum cosmology, the Universe eternally inflates into
an infinity of bubble universes, themselves inflating into others endlessly.
These scenarios suggest a far more ontologically stark many worlds character
than those of standard Big Bang cosmology, though they are far less defensible
empirically. At least in theory they seem to explain fine-tuning via a kind
of cosmic Darwinism, rendering the design argument irrelevant.
Those defending the AP tend to stress the technical and
philosophical problems with inflation and quantum cosmology while appealing to
Occams Razor in support of the Big Bang, and in turn God, as the simplest
explanation of fine-tuning. Critics of design tend to view standard Big Bang
cosmology as outdated, while appealing to Humean criticisms of design.
Two scholars in particular gave particularly balanced
treatments of the controversy that can serve to close our discussion here. In
1985, John Leslie concluded that the design argument as well as the many
universes scenario (via Guths inflationary scenario) are both serious
contenders deserving our attention. A decade later, Joseph M Zycinski cited Leslies call to re-examine the design
argument seriously. On the one hand, relativistic cosmology has falsified
Monods insistence on mere chance and necessity. Still on the other, the
irremovable possibility of giving the designer a neoplatonic interpretation
warns us not to claim too much from science about the identity of God.
Contributed by: Dr. Robert Russell
|
