The naturalist who embraces the multiverse has a another problem in addition to the problem with miracles. Darwinian evolution is predicated on uniformitarianism, the belief that the laws of physics never change, but if there's a multiverse, of which we are a part, then uniformitarianism becomes highly improbable.
Torley writes:
[S]ince the argument for Darwinian evolution is based on the assumption that the laws and parameters of Nature do not vary, it follows that if we live in a multiverse, then our own universe is infinitely more likely to be one in which the miracles of the Bible occurred than a uniformitarian one in which life evolved in a Darwinian fashion.What a pickle. If reality is populated by an infinity of universes, all with different combinations of laws and constants, then it's astronomically more likely that any given universe would be one in which the laws of physics happen to vary from time to time. If that's so, then the objection to miracles, which is based on the constancy of the laws of nature, pretty much disappears.
... there will still be a number of possible universes in the multiverse in which life pops into existence in the manner described in Genesis 1 and where living things just happen to exhibit the striking traits predicted by Darwinism, whereas there is (by definition) only ONE way for a given set of laws and parameters NOT to vary: namely, by remaining the same at every point in space and time.
The problem [for the naturalist] is that the uniformitarian requirement that the laws and parameters of Nature are the same at every point in space and time – which is rather like hitting bull’s eyes again and again and again, for billions of years – is inherently so very unlikely, when compared to “singularism” (the hypothesis that the laws of Nature undergo slight, short-lived or local fluctuations)...
Thus in a multiverse scenario, uniformitarianism becomes the albatross around the neck of Darwinism: no matter how many of Darwin’s predictions scientists manage to confirm, the sheer unlikelihood of the hypothesis that we live in a universe whose laws never vary renders Darwinism too unlikely a theory to warrant scientific consideration.
In other words, it's much more likely that we're living in a universe in which the laws of nature are not uniform than that we're living in one in which they are.
But if so, not only are apparent miracles more plausible but Darwinian evolution, which is based on the principle that the laws of nature are invariant, becomes much less plausible.
The naturalist, confronted with powerful evidence for a cosmic designer based on cosmic fine-tuning, invokes the multiverse as an escape hatch. In an infinite ensemble of worlds, he argues, there just has to be one with all the properties of our universe, no matter how improbable such a universe may be, and we just happen to find ourselves in it.
However, if there's a multiverse then it's highly improbable that the laws in our universe would be invariant since universes in which the laws changed from time to time would be far more abundant. And since it's much more likely that our universe is a universe in which the laws are not always the same than that it's one in which the laws are always the same, Darwinian evolution, which is based on the uniformity of the laws, becomes much less likely and miracles, which seem to be exceptions to the laws, become much more likely.
The naturalist seems to be mired in an intellectual quagmire and it's not at all clear how he can extricate himself from it. If he holds on to the multiverse he must diminish his confidence in Darwinism and acknowledge the likelihood that miracles occur. If he chooses to hold on to Darwinism his confidence in the multiverse must diminish and thus the fine-tuning argument for the existence of God becomes much more compelling.
More on the naturalist's difficulties tomorrow.
