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 Linde’s 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 Occam’s 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 Critics of design tend to view standard Big Bang cosmology as outdated, while appealing to Humean criticisms of design.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 Guth’s inflationary scenario) are both serious
contenders deserving our attention.
A decade later, Joseph M Zycinski cited Leslie’s call to re-examine the design
argument seriously. On the one hand, relativistic cosmology has “falsified”
Monod’s 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.
| Topic Index |
Next: c) Final Remark |
Contributed by: Dr. Robert Russell