Intelligent Design & Multiverse -- Equal Time?

I have been listening to a series of podcasts that are from a U.C. Berkley astronomy class. In the latest, the professor discussed the "fine tuning" (his words, not mine) of the universe. He was candid about how slim the chances are that the "arbitrary" values of so many variables in the universe tilt towards life. He then said that one "reasonable" answer is intelligent design. He was "fine" with that conclusion, but insisted that it was not science and so he would not talk about it anymore than he had. It belonged in a religious class, but that did not mean that it was an unreasonable answer, just an answer that was beyond the bounds of science to answer.

This is not an uncommon position among scientists I have heard discuss the subject, though I found his very genuine sounding position that it was a reasonable answer to the issue interesting.

What was more interesting, however, was the professor's discussion of the multiverse theory. He saw this as the flip side of the coin (my words, not his), explaining the fine tuning of our universe by imagining that there are an almost endless number of alternative universes out there, each with its own laws of physics (or values of those physical laws). This would explain why one (or a few more) universes appear fine tuned. After all, if you are playing poker you should not be surprised if you get a few straight flushs in a row if you have been playing for billions of years.

This was all very interesting and the professor took about 10 to 15 minutes of his lecture exploring the topic. I was somewhat surprised when he finished that segment with the admission that the multiverse was so speculative that it was no more scientific than intelligent design. But he had just spent about 10X the amount of time exploring the multiverse theory than he had the intelligent design theory. If both are equally unscientific in his mind, then why was he so much more comfortable talking about the multiverse than intelligent design?

One answer might be that there are greater career risks in being seen as an advocate of intelligent design. But I think it more likely that the professor was simply more comfortable speculating about "nonscientific" theories that exclude God than "nonscientific" theories that include God. Another answer might be that the multiverse theory has the potential to be scientific whereas the intelligent design theory does not. But this means that in this area science is not following the evidence, but certain a priori philosophical positions that exclude certain conclusions before weighing the evidence.

In any event, it is far from clear that the multiverse theory is an escape hatch from intelligent design. Philosopher Robin Collins, for example, believes hat "an inflationary many-universes scenario might be able to offer a viable explanation of the fine-tuning" but then goes on "to explain why there still remains a powerful case for design from physics and cosmology." Collins, "Design and the Many-Worlds Hypothesis," in Philosophy of Religion, at 132.