stop inflating at different times. This
would result in ‘islands’ of non-inflating
space (still expanding but at a slower
rate) surrounded by enormous amounts
of still-inflating space, which would
forever ‘cut off’ these ‘islands’ from one
another. These ‘islands’ would become
filled with radiation and matter and
become, in effect, their own universes!
Theorists also became convinced
that, once inflation started, it would
never stop. This means that inflation
would ultimately produce an infinite
number of universes. In this view, the
alleged big bang 13. 8 billion years ago is
only the beginning of our universe, not
the beginning of the multiverse itself.
Inflation is supposedly still occurring
in other regions of space, with other
universes even now being created. 6
But a multiverse doesn’t really
explain our existence.
Some of the issues
First, there is no evidence whatsoever
that other universes exist, even though
the idea is often popularized in science
fiction television shows and movies.
Second, the multiverse idea is unscientific: because these ‘island’ universes
(even if they existed) would forever be
isolated from one another, it is difficult
to see how their existence could ever be
confirmed or denied. Since the idea of
a multiverse cannot be falsified (shown
to be false), it is arguably not a truly
scientific hypothesis. 7
Third, there is no direct evidence
for inflation itself: recent claims for
‘smoking gun’ evidence for inflation
were quickly retracted. 8 Rather, the
main ‘evidence’ for inflation is based
upon circular reasoning—the fact that
the big bang doesn’t work without
inflation is counted as evidence for
inflation! 9 Moreover, modern inflation
theory has become increasingly bizarre,
which has led some theorists to criticize
and abandon it. One of these critics is
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
cosmologist Max Tegmark, who says,
“Inflation has destroyed itself. It logically self-destructed.” 10 Even Paul
Steinhardt, a leading inflation theorist,
has become a critic of the theory. 11
No rabbit in this hat
Most important, although the multiverse of inflation theory may make the
‘goo-to-you’ story seem more believable,
this is simply an illusion. As we saw,
evolutionists claim it is inevitable that
some universes in the multiverse would
have laws of physics and chemistry that
permit life to exist, and we just happen
to live in one of those. But in order for
their argument to come anywhere near
to explaining our existence without a
Creator, it is not enough for these laws
to permit life to exist. Clearly they do
permit this, or we wouldn’t be here; but
this is also true in a biblical creation
scenario. In order for this argument to
favour evolution, these physical laws
must also permit the formation of life
from non-life, also known as chemical
evolution or abiogenesis. But do the
laws of physics and chemistry in our
universe permit this?
Apparently not. Evolutionists still
cannot explain the origin of life, despite
investing enormous amounts of time and
money on the problem. If we really do
live in a universe whose laws of physics
and chemistry permit chemical evolution, why has it never been observed? 12
And why are evolutionist researchers
still unable to convincingly explain how
life could have ‘naturally’ appeared?
Could it be that perhaps the laws of
physics and chemistry in our universe
simply don’t permit abiogenesis?
Everything we know about physics and
chemistry in this universe indicates
that life cannot come from non-life.
Famous evolutionist Paul Davies has
often pointed out that life is all about
machinery. And, he says, “There is no
known law of physics able to create
information from nothing.” 13
Thus, even if other universes did exist,
and even if the laws of physics and chemistry in every single one of these other
supposed universes did permit abiogenesis, this would do nothing to explain
the existence of life in this universe. Do
evolutionists really think that the enormous difficulties in ‘goo-to-you’ evolution stories will vanish simply because
they claim that other universes exist?
Thus the multiverse idea, while it may
superficially make evolution seem more
plausible, actually gains the skeptics
nothing in their attempt to explain their
existence apart from their Creator.
References and notes
1. See book review by Williams, A., Great
minds on the origin of life, J. Creation 21(1):
38–42, 2007; creation.com/singularities. See
appears to be the only alternative to a
Creator; see Lewis, G.F. and Barnes, L.A.,
A Fortunate Universe: Life in a finely tuned
cosmos, Cambridge University Press, 2016.
3. Folger, T. Science’s alternative to an
intelligent Creator: the Multiverse
Theory, Discover, 10 November 2008;
4. Some physicists have recently claimed
that an argument for a multiverse also
comes from a speculative physics research
program called string theory. However, one
of the main criticisms of string theory is
that it currently cannot be tested.
5. Of course, the Big Bang still has many
even by secular scientists;
Am. 304( 4): 36–43, April 2011.
7. Scoles, S., Can physicists ever prove the
multiverse is real? Smithsonian Magazine,
19 April 2016; smithsonianmag.com.
8. Steinhardt, P., Big Bang blunder bursts the
multiverse bubble, Nature 510(7503): 9, June
9. There is much circular reasoning in the
interpretation of cosmological data; see
really happen? creation.com/inflation, 11
September 2015, also Faulkner, D., Have
cosmologists discovered evidence of
creation.com/cosmo-inflation-evidence, 29 March 2006.
10. Gefter, A., What kind of bang was the big
bang? newscientist.com, 2 July 2012.
11. Williams, A., Big bang blunder bursts the
multiverse bubble: Premature hype over
gravitational waves highlights gaping holes
in models for the origins and evolution
of the universe,
creation.com/multiverse-bubble-bursts, 12 June 2014.
12. According to the Bible, some people did
witness supernatural transformations of
non-life into life (Exodus 7: 8–13, 8: 16–19),
not to mention the raising of the dead
(Luke 24)! But skeptics reject this
eyewitness testimony, since acknowledging
these events would require them to
acknowledge the supernatural in general,
and God’s existence in particular.
13. Davies, P., Life force, New Scientist
163(2204): 27–30, 18 September 1999.
JAKE HEBERT B.S., M.S., Ph.D.
Dr Hebert’s qualifications (all in physics) include
a doctorate from the University of Texas at Dallas, on the connection between solar activity, cosmic rays, and climate. Since 2011 he has been a
research associate at the Institute for Creation
Research, where his research interests include pre-and post-Flood climates, cosmology, and general
apologetics. For more: creation.com/jake-hebert