‘And, although there are certainly anti-religious scientists out there, who allow their bias to influence their theories, the fact that the latter are open, to all, in principle, make it likely that any biased elements in their hypothetical framework will be exposed and eliminated.’

I don’t really think so, my friend. Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions and Michael Polanyi’s writings both speak to scientists’ subjective experiences which make science a relativistic discipline. Kuhn talks about paradigm shifts, and the failure of a result to conform to the paradigm is seen not as refuting the paradigm, but as the mistake of the researcher, until enough anomalous results build up that scientist’s are forced to ‘shift paradigms’. The biases can hold within the consensus view until a ‘revolution’ comes along. What’s to say our current ‘paradigm’ won’t shift?

The Word of God, however, is a much stronger epistemological base for knowledge.

You make a good point. I certainly agree with what you seem to be intimating that science is a human activity, and therefore is fallible. But so is Biblical interpretation.

Humans can be more or less objective, but certainly not perfect. And, although there are certainly anti-religious scientists out there, who allow their bias to influence their theories, the fact that the latter are open, to all, in principle, make it likely that any biased elements in their hypothetical framework will be exposed and eliminated.

It’s my position that empirical science should not presuppose the validity of a naturalistic philosophy. It should assume nothing, except for the general reliability of our senses, and our capacity to, in general, devise theories (that are brains make, at least often, reasonable inferences). A scientist should never assume that God is out of bounds.

Rather, evidence is looked at through an interpretive grid. Every theory should have some evidential support. The point is that evidential support can support any number of theories. Theories are under-determined by data. I was referring to the men behind the theories, and the anti-biblical philosophies that supported them.

“I think a far more telling reason is that it doesn’t accord with the Word of God. This is primary.”

I would agree that there are several that would argue that same thing.

But I think that you give people too much credit. I have found that all too often many haven’t actually done the research or looked how evolution compares to scripture such as you have. Rather, it is common that people assume that evolution and God cannot coexist, based simply on the premise that it is often used as argument against God.

I think that a similar case can be found with the multiverse theory.

I think a far more telling reason is that it doesn’t accord with the Word of God. This is primary.

I think the how, who, and why of the theory of evolution shows otherwise.

But why is this it’s only use? Shouldn’t we, as seekers of the truth, fully explore the possibilities before throwing it aside.

Having said that, I do not mean to accuse Steve, or any others who don’t believe in evolution, of not doing their homework. But I merely mean to make the point that in the case of the multiverse theory, just because it has been used as a way to explain away God does not mean it is necessarily false.

I don’t find the multiverse theory to be incompatible with God at all. Especially since, it is merely a theory and there is in fact very little empirical evidence to support the theory.

But we do in fact know that something exists outside of the universe. I would contend that God does not in fact exist within our universe, or at least that he does not fully exist within our universe. We know this because our universe is bound by laws of physical reality that do not apply to God.

We also know that God is the ultimate form of existence. He does not have existence, he is existence. So, in fact, not only does something exist outside of our universe, there is in fact pure existence outside of our universe. Existence, in fact, precedes our universe.

Having this in perspective, the idea of a multiverse wouldn’t surprise me, nor would it prove anything against God, but rather that further show that God is capable of creation beyond our understanding.

It’s a package deal, right? Evolution is but one component of the package.

I think that if one is commited to methodological naturalism, a view that I consider utterly unscientific, one must follow the empirical evidence to wherever it leads, and not make a priori stipulations that no supernatural explanations are allowed, one would be committed to probably an evolutionary view of biology. As William Lane Criag mentioned, in one of his debates with Christopher Hitchens, for the atheist, evolution by natural selection is the “only game in town.” (of course, I believe that evoloution is wholly congruent with Christian belief) .

One would likely be committed to either a multiverse notion of reality, that they’re an infinite number of universes, and by chance, ours just happens to be conducive to life, or that the universe is “one” but always existed (not exactly conducive with the science of the big bang) or that the universe “caused itself.” Perhaps due to a “quantum fluctuation.”

Now, there’s a wierd version of the multiverse notion, where there’s “every possible reality”, exists, every possible contingent reality exists: so, perhaps the atheist, if he adhered to this notion, believes that this universe that we’re on, is not due to a God’s creation, it’s an atheistic universe, but because every other possible universe exists, then there’s another universe, created by a Christian God, another universe created by Hindu Gods, etc. I don’t know of anyone who adheres to this completely outlandish fantasy, but it would be indeed profoundly ironic for an atheist to believe this, when the simpler explanation would be to believe in one universe, that was created by God.