The Multiverse Theory Supports Creationism's Young Age Hypothesis

I've attempted to link MWH to YEC only in the sense that it's age estimate would contradict what we currently observe, thus coherence between the two theories is found. " if we ... are merely random fluctuations, then the entire basis on which we conclude about the universe around [us] is removed ... as everything we know about it is based upon our memories, which could, themselves, merely be a result of random fluctuations" Con has clearly misunderstood the many worlds theory (albeit it's not the easiest of subjects). He shouldn't think of the random fluctuations as accidents within a world or universe, but rather it is the fluctuation within the global equilibrium that gives rise to a big bang itself. See this picture for a good visual, http://www.debate.org... So it's not that we would believe the universe is an illusion, rather it's that the age of the universe has a higher probability of being very young compared to the age estimate we currently and actually have. Since if our world is just a chance fluctuation from a state of overall equilibrium, then we ought to be observing a much smaller region of order, because a small fluctuation from equilibrium is vastly more probable than the huge, sustained fluctuation necessary to create the universe we see. (See Boltzmann paper) I also hope Con doesn't think Boltzmann's brains are actual human brains! (It would be almost comical if he did.) But I can't help but wonder with a comment like, "With Boltzmann's brains in effect, it isn't merely cosmological constants and fundamental values that are called into question it is everything anyone thinks they know."I'll lend him an opportunity to clarify his position before I start on his contention one. (I understand the science talk can be confusing but I recommend looking over the papers once more.) Contention 2 Now falsifiability is often used in science but such criteria isn't necessary. We have many scientific explanations that include other criteria other than falsifiability. Think of electrons for instance, half of all theoretical physics, the singularity, not to mention non-regularity historical events like geological events (like what I deal with as a geophysicist... mantle plumes aren't even falsifiable! ... Boy, I'd be out of a job) Part of the problem of science is the demarcation problem. Karl Popper tried fixing this with his famous philosophy of science: verificationism. (Even Einstein bought into it...) But verificationism collapsed back in the 1960's as a failed theory. (Although the effects seem to linger in sub-culture). So far from being a fundamental part of science, falsification is only a very useful part of science which can help a researcher better weigh the theory. Nevertheless it certainly doesn't serve as a demarcation between science and non-science, as Amherst College philosopher Alexander George puts it, "Science can be disproved, or falsified, on the basis of observable data. No, for it's always possible to protect a theory from an apparently confuting observation" Contention 3 Thus my basic resolution stands, the MWH, if true, would give us an illusion of age, thus lending support to young earth creationism. The support isn't a full support obviously since it doesn't prove God, or the universe took exactly 6 days to form, etc. Rather MWH supports YEC only in it's claim to an illusion of age. Furthermore it doesn't matter how a scientific theory comes about. I can read on the back of a cracker jack box that weak dehydration melting yields a hypersthene inosilicate. I can later conduct research and find out if the cracker box was right. A scientist will consult all she knows in justifying a theory. Thus the fact that YEC emerged as a theory from the Bible doesn't do anything to put it off par from being an idea capable of receiving support from other theories. Such an assumption is simply wrong headed. Nevertheless the truth or falsity or coherence of such theories remain a scientific question, not theological questions. Even if it's a bad theory, that doesn't entail that it can't receive support from other independent theories (albeit less plausible ones as well). Finally, the dramatized conclusion that everything we know should be cast out is equally wrong headed and implies that Con should re-read the peer-reviewed papers I posted on the matter prior to rebutting. Plus "abandoning everything we know" would include our knowledge of MWH itself leaving us back at square one, and that's not my claim, it's much more modest then that.