Multiverse and/or Intelligent Design-Action during our History of Nature

This page supplements my page about Multiverse - Christian Theology & Scientific Rationality - Intelligent Design (before History) of Nature? which begins with a summary of central ideas about a multiverse and useful concepts for evaluating evolution.

The order of Parts 1 & 2 doesn't matter, so you can begin by first reading either Part 1 or Part 2.
Part 1. Multiverse — Theology & Science: This section supplements the "Philosophy and Theology" section in my Anthropic Principle: Multiverse and/or Intelligent Design? (abbreviated AP/MaoID)* by responding to The Puzzle of Existence by Robert B. Mann in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, September 2009. All quotations in Part 1 are from these two papers. {*you may want to first read its overview-summary} / Although I saw similar ideas in Robert's earlier paper (Inconstant Universe) in 2005, my current responses were stimulated by hearing his talk at the Annual Meeting of ASA in August 2009; then I read his 2009 paper, and wrote the "Philosophy and Theology" section and this response-page. }
Part 2. Multiverse and Intelligent Design: In a related question, I examine the implications of a multiverse and/or intelligent design for life sciences that study the origin and evolution of life.

**Is a DESIGN theory unscientific?** A strong defense of atheism (or rigid agnosticism, deism, pantheism,...) requires a conclusion of "no divine action" for everything in our world. A way to guarantee this conclusion in science, or in any other field, is methodological naturalism (MN) which is a restriction claiming that only natural cause-and-effect can be proposed in scientific theories. My FAQ for Creation, Evolution, and Design examines the scientific rationality and theological acceptability of MN by asking "Is MN always useful in science?" and "Should a Christian accept MN?" in Sections 7C and 7D. Quoting from 7C,

Is it necessary for a scientist to always conclude, for everything in the history of nature, that "it happened by natural process"? This assumed conclusion produces an inflexible Closed Science that is constrained, in its search for truth, by rigid-MN. In a rational alternative, a flexible Open Science uses testable-MN in which a scientific investigation begins by assuming "it happened by natural process" but considers this a flexible assumption that can be tested, not a rigid conclusion that must be accepted. .....
A basic design theory (which claims only that "design did occur") does not explicitly propose supernatural action, but — since design-action can be either natural (as in genetic engineering) or supernatural (as in miraculous biblical healings) — it implicitly acknowledges the possibility of divine action, so design is not limited by the restriction of rigid methodological naturalism.

In 7D, I explain how a Bible-believing Christian can propose "no miracles in science" even though the Bible claims that God does miracles:

Proponents of an open search accept rigid-MN in science, but view the resulting closed MN-science as one aspect of a broader "open search for truth" that considers all possibilities, including miracles. MN-science is respected as an expert witness, but is not allowed to be the judge and jury when we're defining rationality and searching for truth. ..... [Christians can accept MN because of the] two differences between methodological naturalism [a decision to use only natural process in scientific theories] and philosophical naturism [an atheistic declaration that "only nature exists"] ..... / MN logically requires MN-Humility that acknowledges the possibility of unavoidable error: If the origin of a feature involved a non-natural cause, then any explanation by MN-Science (in terms of only natural causes) will be incomplete or incorrect.

But using MN in science (and in other areas of scholarship) can lead to distorted perceptions in an "open search for truth" because:

When a "scientific" non-design theory and a "nonscientific" design theory both claim to describe some feature in the history of nature,... in modern society most people assume that, for a theory about nature, "not scientific" [as in a design theory] means "not true"... and "scientific" [in a non-design theory] means "probably true." .....
MN-Science can bypass the process of science and then claim the authority of science for its naturalistic assumptions that (due to the rarity and futility of MN-Humility) appear to be scientific conclusions.

The Effects of Methodological Naturalism

A decision to use rigid-MN, instead of testable-MN, will affect our conclusions about a design theory and nondesign theory in opposite ways, by eliminating design and guaranteeing nondesign: unless a design theory explicitly proposes only natural design and design-directed action, it allows supernatural design-and-action as a possibility, so it will be eliminated by rigid-MN; and if we demand a natural explanation for everything, we must accept nondesign theories — such as those proposing an immense multiverse (to explain the life-allowing properties of nature we observe) and (to explain our observation of intelligent humans) an origin of life by natural chemical evolution, followed by a development of all biodiversity and biocomplexity by natural neo-Darwinian evolution — whether or not these nondesign theories are strongly supported by scientific evidence and logic.
two comments: With rigid-MN scientists could accept either a non-design theory or a proposal for natural design-and-action. An appendix includes a table showing seven possibilities and the effects of assuming a multiverse or demanding MN.

Science and Miracles — Part 2
Part 1 of Science and Miracles concludes that "the potential problem [of miracles disrupting science] is not an actual problem for everyday science" because "if despite occasional miracles the universe usually operates according to normal natural patterns, science will be possible and useful." Then it refers to a continuation of the discussion in Part 2, which is "a comparison of two potential science-changers, divine miracles and multiverse miracles." Let's begin this comparison, in which we'll ask how these two types of "miracles" might affect our evaluations of chemical evolution and biological evolution, by comparing two related types of science, to see their similarities and differences.
Operation Science and Historical Science: It can be useful to distinguish between operation science (to study the current operation of nature, what is happening now) and historical science (to study the previous history of nature, what happened in the past). I think both use the same scientific logic in their scientific methods, and both can be reliable, as explained in Historical Science & Operation Science - Closely Related Scientific Methods which includes a discussion of theories proposing agency causation or unobservable causes. We have no reason to suspect that God is miraculously changing the results of everyday experiments in operation science; but even if there were occasional miracles, the scientific practice of demanding reproducible results (and being able to generate these results and compare them) would negate the effects of occasional miracles, so the results of operation science would not be affected. By contrast, an occasional miracle could have significant consequences in history; and these consequences could be important when we are trying to develop an accurate historical science, as in our evaluations of theories about the origin of life (did it occur by natural chemical evolution or by a miracle?) and the development of life in biological evolution.
Divine Miracles and Evolution: As explained above, if scientists accept methodological naturalism (MN) this restriction "logically requires MN-Humility that acknowledges the possibility of unavoidable error: if the origin of a feature involved a non-natural cause, then any explanation by MN-Science (in terms of only natural causes) will be incomplete or incorrect." Imagine that the Origin of Life (OOL) would not occur by natural process, but God wanted life so He created the first life by using a divine miracle. In this situation, if scientists reject testable-MN and they use rigid-MN and/or a naturalistic anthropic/canine principle and/or a beating-the-odds appeal to conclude that "because we exist, we must have been produced by a natural process of evolution," their scientific conclusion is wrong, and science has failed in the search for truth that is a very important goal-of-science for most scientists. In this situation, an overly rigid process of science has produced an incorrect result of science, in a "false positive" for the sufficiency of natural process. Of course, the opposite "false negative" error would occur in the opposite scenario if there were no divine miracles in the actual historical origin of life. These two possible errors are why I urge an appropriate humility when we ask "is nature 100% naturally-assembling?" in Section 5D of my Overview-FAQ.
Multiverse Miracles and Evolution: What is a multiverse miracle? Imagine that in the future some scientists conclude, using scientific evidence and logic, that a natural Origin of Life is extremely improbable (and it probably would never occur) in a single-universe that is the only universe, but they use beating-the-odds logic to conclude that a natural OOL is reasonably probable (so it could occur) if we live in a multiverse-universe that is part of an immense multiverse. We could view this combination of differing probabilities — if there is a mis-match between the probabilities of natural OOL in a single-universe (where it's extremely improbable) and in a multiverse-universe (where it becomes probable and it does occur naturally in at least one universe) — as a natural multiverse-miracle. But a multiverse-miracle is actually a semi-miracle if we define a miracle as an event that: 1) does happen even though we conclude that it's so extremely improbable that it could not happen by ordinary natural process, and 2) happens due to supernatural power. A multiverse-miracle satisfies requirement #1 but not #2, so by this definition a natural multiverse-miracle is only a semi-miracle, compared with a conventional supernatural miracle that is both #1 and #2.
Multiverse Miracles and Divine Miracles: Can a multiverse be used to "explain away" claims for divine miracles? Can a skeptic say "you just happen to be in a universe where this improbable event occurred?" No, because in each universe "whatever is most likely to happen is what is most likely to be observed." In any universe (including our own) where the behavior of nature is stable and reliable, it's extremely unlikely that nature will be converted into an "Alice in Wonderland" world where unusual things occur without reason, such as supernatural intervention to cause miraculous-appearing events.
Multiverse Miracle and Anthropic Principle: The anthropic principle is a logically valid consequence of our self-observation, but is not an explanation for the fine tuning of nature that allows our self-observation. An illustrative example, from John Leslie, is a prisoner who is sentenced to execution by a large firing squad with 100 expert marksmen; the prisoner hears the sound of 100 rifles firing, and then realizes that he is still alive, and his question is "why?" Of course, if he wasn't still alive he wouldn't be asking the question, but this fact does not explain why he is still alive: did all of the shooters miss? if so, was it by accident or design? did all of the shooters agree to miss, or did someone replace all of their bullets with blanks? or is there some other explanation? If the prisoner doubts the possibility of sheer luck, he would be justified in concluding that his continuing existence is either the result of intelligent design-directed action (intended to make the execution ineffective) or is a miracle. In the case of our own existence in a life-allowing universe, four possible explanations are a single-universe (either designed or undesigned), or a multiverse (either designed or undesigned) that produces a natural multiverse-miracle. But, as explained earlier, usually "whatever is most likely to happen is what is most likely to be observed" so observing strange events (due to natural multiverse-miracles) would not be any more common in a multiverse than in a universe, because we are not omnipresent super-beings who are observing everything that is happening everywhere in all universes.
In the table below, a multiverse miracle occurs if there is a mis-match between the two possible realities described in yellow cells at the upper-right (*) where in a single-universe a natural OOL is extremely improbable and the first life was created by a divine miracle, and at the lower-left (*) where in a rare multiverse-universe the first life did begin by natural process:

Here are four possibilities for OOL (Origin of Life) if we make two different assumptions about a multiverse:
IF we actually live in single-universe	OOL by natural process	these (left & right) could both occur in the same universe or on the same planet	* OOL by divine miracle
evidently we cannot know with certainty so if-then logic seems necessary	rigid-MN makes these conclusions (above & below) inevitable	a multiverse miracle occurs if mismatch between probabilities of natural OOL in single-universe (improbable ) and in multiverse-universe (probable )	for these scenarios (above & below) MN-Science is wrong, MN-Humility is needed
IF we actually live in multiverse-universe	* OOL by natural process	natural OOL might be improbable (like a Flying Salt Pyramid) even in a multiverse	OOL by divine miracle

Here are detailed comments about my brief comment-summaries (in white cells) in the table above: the two blue cells begin with "IF" because I think that currently we cannot know with certainty whether or not we live in a multivese; the two comments about MN (re: rigid-MN, and MN-Science/Humility) are related and are explained earlier; the center comment, defining a multiverse miracle, is explained above in Part 2 of Miracles and Science; a dual-OOL (with life arising naturally on one planet but created miraculously on another planet inside the same universe, or with both happening at different times or places on the same planet, or in different universes) is possible, but these OOLs will be mutually exclusive (so only one or the other occurs) if God creates life by using a divine miracle only if this is required, if God wants life at a particular time-and-place but this life would not be produced by natural process; and below you'll find an explanation of why a miraculous OOL might be necessary even in a multiverse, so "multiverse" does not necessarily mean "no design-action during history."
Are we alone? Are we the only life in our universe? When you think about this question you'll see why, if we are here due to a multiverse miracle, then it's likely that either life on earth is the result of panspermia, or we are alone.

The Origin of Humans — Biological Evolution and/or Intelligent Design?

We are here, but — since the logical implications of our self-obervation, summarized in the Anthropic Principle, do not tell us whether our universe is just life-allowing or is also life-producing, or if we live in a single-universe (which is the only universe) or a multiverse-universe (a universe within a multiverse) — when we can ask "how did we get here?" there are many possibilities:
Maybe we live in a single-universe that was not designed, and we were just lucky (but this seems extremely improbable!) so our universe is life-producing, and we are here due to natural evolution; or maybe this one universe was designed by God, who then created us by using natural evolution and/or miracles. Or maybe we live in a multiverse-universe that can allow life but won't naturally produce life, so life occurs only where God decides to create it within our universe (and maybe also in other universes) by using miracles, and this makes the history of nature a combination of natural process plus miracles. Or maybe a multiverse includes one or more universe-types in which nature can produce intelligent life, and we evolved naturally, with or without natural-appearing guidance by God, and with or without any miraculous-appearing actions by God. All of these scenarios are possible and (except for a nondesigned single-universe with life) seem plausible, based on the current state of our science.

The Origin of Life — Chemical Evolution or Intelligent Design

Did the first carbon-based life arise by undirected natural process, or was it the result of intelligent design plus design-directed action? Let's think about how our responses to this question (where "responding" is not necessarily "answering") will differ when we use two different assumptions, by assuming that: 1) we live in a single-universe, or 2) we live in a multiverse containing many actualizations of our universe-type, all having the same properties of nature and a history of nature that is not identical but is similar, with all histories (in our assumption) including the formation of galaxies, stars, and solar systems.
Before we examine the question of life, let's look at three simpler phenomena whose "probability of observation" spans the entire range from certain to impossible, and in-between.
Density of Aluminum (this observation is certain, with 100% probability, yes it will occur): In every actualized-universe of our universe-type, will aluminum (in a precisely specified state, such as pure ²⁷Al with perfect crystal structure at 20° C) have the same density? YES, because each universe will have the same properties of nature, which include the properties of aluminum and thus the density of aluminum.
Flying Salt Pyramid (this observation seems impossible, with 0% probability, no it will not occur): Will scientists in any universe-actualization ever observe a series of events, occurring by only undirected natural process, in which a 75 kg perfectly shaped equilateral triangular pyramid (a tetrahedron) made of pure NaCl salt flies with an up-and-down "roller coaster" motion, orbiting their planet twice in one day, with the first orbit taking exactly 1/2 day, followed by a 20 minute pause while the salt pyramid comes to rest in a pool of hot water, from which it emerges as a perfect 75 kg pyramid (with no dissolving) and then flies around the world again? NO. I think we can safely say that this would NEVER happen, even in an infinite universe where "everything" happens (not just a huge multiverse where many things happen), because this event is not just extremely improbable, it is IMPOSSIBLE because it violates several laws of nature in spectacular ways. If scientists ever did observe this event, they could logically conclude that it was the result of design-directed action by a natural agent (using highly advanced natural technology) or a supernatural agent (using supernatural powers).
Blue-and-Red Solution (this observation is improbable but possible, maybe it will occur): Imagine that we begin an experiment with a solution containing water plus ions of copper (blue) and cobalt (red) mixed together to make a purple-colored solution. Could this purple solution ever become totally un-mixed, with every copper ion in the left half and every cobalt ion in the right half, so instead of a purple mix we see pure blue and pure red? MAYBE. In fact, if we knew how many actualized-universes of our type were in the multiverse (that is being assumed in this section) we could carefully define the experiment — by making decisions about the amount of water, number of copper and cobalt ions, shape of container, temperature, and time during which we observe — so an unmixing would occur in some universes but not most. { note: This is a thought experiment that focuses on physics. It ignores the non-physics aspects of the situation by imagining that the experiment, or something analogous to it in the origin of life, could occur naturally without being run by intelligent agents. This simplification avoids the need to estimate probabilities for the multiple evolutions of intelligent observers who would ask questions about life in a multiverse, thus leading to multiple scientists who define and run the same physical experiment in multiple universes. }

In the range of probabilities, where is a natural origin of life? Is it an extreme, either certain or impossible, or somewhere in-between, or should we simply acknowledge that "currently it's difficult to reach a confident conclusion"? This question is examined in Section 7B of my FAQ about Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design; the excerpts below describe some of the main ideas, but I recommend reading the whole section, especially the final parts — Logic and Testing, Confidence not Proof, Two Ways to Infer Design, Seven Possibilities for Life, and Future Science — beginning at the point where you'll be when you click the link. Quoting from the FAQ,

A particular feature [such as the first life] was produced either by detectable design-directed action (design) or by what appears to be undirected natural process (non-design). These two possibilities are mutually exclusive, so if non-design is highly improbable, design is highly probable. ..... We ask whether a feature could be produced by non-design, and if we answer "probably not" then we conclude it probably was produced by design. .....
seven possibilities: Perhaps a feature, such as the first life (more specifically, the first carbon-based life), was produced by undirected natural process that seems very improbable but it 1v) did occur anyway, or 1w) is actually very probable because we live in a huge multiverse*;   or maybe it was reasonably probable and it can be (or could be) described in a naturalistic theory that 1x) is currently known, or 1y) will be known in the future, or 1z) will never be known;   or maybe the feature was produced by design-directed action, by 2a) natural design and construction (by a previously existing form of life that was not carbon-based), or 2b) supernatural design and creation.
All current theories for a natural evolution of chemicals from nonlife to life seem highly implausible, because what is necessary (for life) seems much greater than what is possible (by natural process). Due to possibilities for a future theory (1y) or no theory (1v, 1w, or 1z) the implausibility of current non-design theories doesn't prove the truth of design. But should scientists consider the possibility that design-action produced the first life? Even though proof is impossible because we can never [either now or in future science] propose and test all possible mechanisms for non-design, could we develop a logically justified confidence that our search has been thorough yet futile, and no promising mechanisms remain unexplored? .....

* Even if a natural origin of life is highly improbable, a combination of selection effects (in the anthropic principle) plus a multiverse (with many universes) can be used to "beat the odds" and thus decrease the scientific support for a claim that undirected natural process could not produce life, or anything else in our history that is anthro-essential, that would be necessary for our existence as observers; but for other things, "whatever is most likely to happen is what is most likely to be observed."    How would a multiverse help to beat the odds? It would increase the available probabilistic resources and thus increase the probability for a natural origin of life, as illustrated by examples from poker and evolution.
But even if we assume a multiverse (and there is no direct observational evidence either for or against this assumption) a claim for intelligent design-directed action could still be scientifically supported. How? We could logically conclude that "design-action is probable" if, in the future, scientists conclude that a natural origin of life is so highly improbable that it is basically impossible — analogous to the extreme improbability, with only undirected natural process and no design-directed action, of a Boeing 747 arising from a garbage dump in Seattle, filling with passengers, and flying to Miami — so this would NEVER happen even in an immense multiverse, and therefore design-directed action is necessary to form a living organism.   [above, a flying salt pyramid is another example of a natural impossibility]
But it would be difficult, even if we had knowledge from a super-science [described in the FAQ], to prove this natural-impossibility in a way that would be accepted by dedicated skeptics — even in a universe (due to the seven possibilities and a worldview-based resistance to acknowledging design) but especially if an assumed multiverse with immense probabilistic resources (*) has increased the level of natural-improbability that skeptical scientists will accept as evidence for design — so there is a possibility of design-directed action that did occur but is not acknowledged by skeptics.
* Some proponents of a multiverse propose an infinitely large multiverse where "everything" happens due to infinite probabilistic resources. But infinity is physically impossible, so it's more scientifically justifiable to claim a large multiverse where many things happen. Therefore, if we assume a multiverse we should try to estimate its size and its increased probabilistic resources.

I.O.U. — Later, this question will be examined: If proponents of a multiverse claim that it contains infinite universes, with infinite probabilistic resources, does this claim guarantee that ALL improbabilities will be overcome by the infinity? / If someone insists on an infinite universe where everything happens, would this include a flying salt pyramid followed by a garbage-747 scenario, then another salt pyramid and garbage-747, then the 747 pilot winning 1000 consecutive million-to-one lotteries? If some event seems to "violate the laws of physics" (but what does this mean? would it exclude probability-based principles like the Second Law of Thermodynamics? what about gravity-defying behaviors?) will it still occur anyway in an infinite multiverse? What kinds of phenomena would be "violations" and thus would not occur? / Typically, every question that does not involve potential violations of physical laws, that are just probabilistically preposterous — for example, "In an infinite multiverse, what is the probability that ‘you’ (defined as a person with the same physiology as you in every molecular detail, with all of the same experiences and memories, etc, in an identical universe with all elementary particles in the same locations and energy-states) will win a million-to-one lottery 100,000 consecutive times, somewhere in this multiverse?" — is answered by claiming that "your multi-win sequence will occur an infinite number of times, in an infinite number of universes." Is this answer logical and justifiable? / Speculative questions like these, about proposals for physical infinities, are examined in a links-page about A Multiverse and/or Intelligent Design of The Universe.

Evaluating Claims-for-Design in a Multiverse
Of the four types of design-claims the one most directly affected by a multiverse is a claim for a divine design of nature before history, if we assume the physical existence of many universe-types in a multiverse. But claims for design-directed action during history would also be affected if we assume many actualized-universes of a given universe-type, as explained at the beginning of Part 2.
How would our evaluations of claims for design-directed action during history differ if we assume a single-universe or a multiverse-universe? As explained in the final sentence quoted above, assuming we live in a multiverse-universe could "increase the level of natural-improbability that skeptical scientists will accept as evidence for design." But in the future, maybe scientists will conclude that a natural origin of life is extremely improbable (basically impossible) even in an immense multiverse (or even in an "infinite" multiverse that sometimes is claimed to be a physically existing reality) as in my examples above (Flying Salt Pyramid and Boeing 747) so a claim for design would still be logically justifiable, even if a multiverse makes this more difficult due to its increase in probabilistic resources. Or future scientists may conclude that in our universe-type a natural evolution of life is highly probable even in a single-universe, or at least is highly probable somewhere in an immense multiverse.
Now or in the future, if some scientists reject a particular claim for intelligent design (either before or during history) because a multiverse can "beat the odds" and eliminate the need for design or design-action, would we have any reason to doubt the scientific credibility of their conclusion? It depends on the strength of scientific evidence (observational & theoretical, direct & indirect) for-and-against the design claim in a single-universe, for-and-against the existence of multiverses with various numbers of universe-types and universe-actualizations, and also whether we think a multiverse theory (or design theory) is authentically scientific. When we consider all of these factors affecting our views about the scientific credibility of a multiverse-based rejection of intelligent design, humility is appropriate, and we should not be surprised if people with differing scientific backgrounds and personal worldviews respond in different ways.
Could the assumption of a multiverse lead to any changes in biological sciences? Quoting from my AP/MaoID page, regarding An Opportunity for Humility in Life-Sciences,

Scientists who are confident about a total evolution of life — including its origin by chemical evolution and subsequent development with biological evolution — will think "beating the odds with a multiverse" is necessary only for the first stage (in pre-history) to get a type of life-allowing universe. They think that only one actualized universe of this type will be necessary, because a life-allowing universe is also a life-producing universe in which life and intelligent observers will always develop by natural evolution. But the option of appealing to "multiple actualizations of this universe-type" is available [in an appeal to a multiverse miracle], so they have the freedom to be humble about the natural sufficiency of life-production in any aspects of life science (especially for the initial origin of life, but also for evolutionary biology) if they ever think some humility is warranted.

Are we alone?
Are we the only life in our universe? If a natural origin of life (or its evolutionary development into humans) is extremely improbable, but we are here due to a multiverse miracle a logical corollary is that probably life on earth is either the result of panspermia or we are the only life in our universe. Why?
Imagine that the odds are one-in-a-billion for life arising anywhere in our type of universe. If we live in a multiverse with 100 billion actualized-universes of our universe-type, the odds favor having life in many of these universes. But in each of these universes with life, it is highly probably (with billion-to-one odds) that life began only once. Therefore, either life exists only in its original location, or it was spread to other locations by undirected panspermia (e.g. with life carried away on debris blasted out of the atmosphere by meteor collisions) or by directed panspermia that is intentional (done by technologically advanced intelligent life for the purpose of "seeding" life in other locations) or unintentional (for example, if living organisms were transported accidentally by one of our incompletely sterilized space ships). Therefore, in this scenario (if life occurs due to a multiverse miracle) either life on earth is the result of panspermia from elsewhere, or earth is the source of life that spreads elsewhere by panspermia, or we are alone, we are the only life in our universe.
We can also use this type of logic when we're thinking about the implications of life appearing fairly soon (on a geological time scale) after geology on the early earth became reasonably stable and life-friendly, capable of sustaining life. If life appeared on earth within a relatively short finite time period (perhaps a hundred million years) after earth's geology became life-sustaining, does this have any logical implications that might help us estimate the probabilities of various scenarios (proposed for a single-universe or multiverse-universe), to help us decide which seems most likely?
Speculations and Humility: Two paragraphs above, I ask you to "imagine... the odds are one-in-a-billion" but the actual odds are probably MUCH higher or lower. And I say that "if we live in a multiverse with 100 billion..." but proposals for a multiverse are speculative, with no direct observational support. We know that one universe exists, but any claim beyond this is speculation. We don't know whether a multiverse exists, and if it does we don't know how many universe-types it contains, or whether the number of our universe-types is far fewer than 100 billion, or far greater. We just don't know.

Life-Allowing Universe and Life-Producing Universe: We are here, so the properties of nature must allow intelligent life. When this anthropic principle is supplemented by a naturalistic assumption that the history of nature has been totally natural, the naturalistic conclusion is that the properties of nature also must produce intelligent life by 100%-natural evolution. / For theists who propose one or more miracles (whatever is needed) during the formative history of nature, a life-allowing universe is sufficient. For totally naturalistic proposals about origins (including theistic evolutionary creation, deism, pantheism, rigid agnosticism, and atheism) a life-producing universe is necessary.

Is a DESIGN theory unscientific? A strong defense of atheism (or rigid agnosticism, deism, pantheism,...) requires a conclusion of "no divine action" for everything in our world. A way to guarantee this conclusion in science, or in any other field, is methodological naturalism (MN) which is a restriction claiming that only natural cause-and-effect can be proposed in scientific theories. My FAQ for Creation, Evolution, and Design examines the scientific rationality and theological acceptability of MN by asking "Is MN always useful in science?" and "Should a Christian accept MN?" in Sections 7C and 7D. Quoting from 7C,

In 7D, I explain how a Bible-believing Christian can propose "no miracles in science" even though the Bible claims that God does miracles:

But using MN in science (and in other areas of scholarship) can lead to distorted perceptions in an "open search for truth" because:

The Effects of Methodological Naturalism

Here are four possibilities for OOL (Origin of Life) if we make two different assumptions about a multiverse:
IF we actually live in single-universe	OOL by natural process	these (left & right) could both occur in the same universe or on the same planet	* OOL by divine miracle
evidently we cannot know with certainty so if-then logic seems necessary	rigid-MN makes these conclusions (above & below) inevitable	a multiverse miracle occurs if mismatch between probabilities of natural OOL in single-universe (improbable ) and in multiverse-universe (probable )	for these scenarios (above & below) MN-Science is wrong, MN-Humility is needed
IF we actually live in multiverse-universe	* OOL by natural process	natural OOL might be improbable (like a Flying Salt Pyramid) even in a multiverse	OOL by divine miracle

The Origin of Humans — Biological Evolution and/or Intelligent Design?

The Origin of Life — Chemical Evolution or Intelligent Design

Appropriate Humility in Science and Theology
Earlier I express my view that "our questions about a multiverse (does it exist? would it be designed or undesigned?) cannot be decisively answered by scientific evidence and logic, so our multiverse-views can be strongly influenced by our personal preference for a particular worldview and its associated way of life." And in Section 5G of my Creation-FAQ, "In science and theology, our humility should be appropriate — not too little, not too much. We can make some claims, but not others, with confidence." An appropriate humility (not too little, not too much, and with a good attitude) is useful when we're thinking about intelligent design in a universe or multiverse, and communicating with each other.

APPENDIX

The Effects of Assuming a Multiverse or Demanding Methodological Naturalism
The table below shows whether a scientific conclusion can be "maybe" or "NO" for each of seven possibilities when we ask about the origin of a feature (such as the first life) whose natural production currently seems improbable, in four types of science: with basic science using a logical evaluation of empirical evidence, which can be supplemented with proposals for an immense multiverse (so "beating the odds" is a possibility) and/or rigid methodological naturalism (MN).

	OOL is extremely improbable by undirected natural process but we are here because		OOL is probable by undirected natural process, with the scientific principles			intelligent design plus design-directed action achieved by a
7 possibilities --->	we are just lucky.	we live in a multiverse.	known now.	known in future.	never known.	natural agent.	supernatural agent.
science	maybe	(not an option)	maybe	maybe	maybe	maybe	maybe
science + multiverse	maybe	maybe	maybe	maybe	maybe	maybe	maybe
science + multiverse + MN	maybe	maybe	maybe	maybe	maybe	maybe	NO
science + MN	maybe	(not an option)	maybe	maybe	maybe	maybe	NO

Notice the effects of assuming a multiverse and demanding MN:
If we assume "beating the odds" with an immense multiverse containing many universe-actualizations of our universe-type, a process that would be extremely improbable in one universe might become probable IF we live in a multiverse, so maybe this is how the first life was produced by undirected natural process.
MN guarantees that the scientific conclusion must be NO when we ask, "was this feature produced by the design-directed action of a supernatural agent?" A belief in Philosophical Naturalism, as in atheism, goes further by claiming that the reality is NO when we ask this question. This distinction is necessary because, as explained in Section 7D of my Creation-FAQ, "devout Christians can use MN in two ways," as part of an Open Search for Truth (by accepting Methodological Naturalism in science, but rejecting Philosophical Naturalism as a worldview) or in an Open Science that replaces rigid-MN with testable-MN.

cut from multiverse-cr.htm
Also, an independent science cannot evaluate the possibility of undetectable natural-appearing design-directed action. .....
Only a naturalistic anthropic principle — which supplements the anthropic principle with methodological naturalism or even philosophical materialism — concludes that we must live in a life-producing universe. .....

But while constructing these theories, we should remember that two possibilities — living in an only-life-allowing universe or also-life-producing universe — are logically consistent with the Anthropic Principle, which does not provide a way to distinguish between them.

Here are some other pages with related ideas:
by me — Anthropic Principle and Fine Tuning: Multiverse and/or Intelligent Design?
and by others — DESIGN OF THE UNIVERSE — SCIENCE & THEOLOGY