In a recent Daily Wire piece, we argued that discoveries in modern physics point directly to God. In a follow-up, we exposed how some scientists are trying to redefine science — not to advance knowledge, but to sidestep the inconvenient possibility of a Creator.
Believe it or not, there’s another tactic in the academic playbook that’s even more brazen. When there is crystal clear evidence for God or some other thing scientists don’t want to acknowledge, they don’t confront the facts, but spin them. Instead of admitting that design implies intelligence, they claim that the incredible design in our universe is evidence for an infinite chaotic multiverse.
We’ve seen this kind of reasoning before. When facts contradict the narrative, the narrative doesn’t change. Instead, the clear implication of the facts gets twisted.
Defund the police, and then crime explodes? Just say that the real problem is a lack of community programs. Teen mental health collapses after a wave of gender surgeries? The experts insist we need to start even younger.
The pattern is the same: take evidence that clearly undermines your position and spin it as if it supports your position.
Surprisingly, this tactic isn’t limited to politics or culture. It’s happening in the heart of elite physics departments.
You’d think that physicists would stick to hard evidence and cold logic. But when modern science starts pointing toward a designer, objectivity disappears. What follows is a breathtaking exercise in mental gymnastics, and a revealing glimpse at how far some atheist scientists are willing to go to protect their belief that God doesn’t exist.
Let’s take a closer look.
Modern academic culture begins with a core assumption: God does not exist. The universe is purely material, blind, and meaningless. Nature has no goals, no plans, no mind. Against this backdrop, it becomes inconvenient when modern physics uncovers something that looks suspiciously like evidence for a Creator.
In the 1970s, physicists made a startling discovery: the basic structure of our universe depends on a set of precise numbers, known as the constants of nature, built into the laws of physics. These include values like the strength of gravity and the charge of the electron. If some of these were even slightly different, the universe wouldn’t work. No atoms. No stars. No galaxies. No life. Just chaos.
This phenomenon is known as “fine-tuning,” and it’s not about minor coincidences. The numbers are astonishingly precise. In some cases, the odds of getting the right value by chance are worse than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion.
So, what’s the simplest, most reasonable explanation? These numbers were set deliberately. That an intelligent cause fine-tuned the universe to produce complexity, order, and structure. In other words, fine-tuning is exactly what you’d expect to see if the universe were intelligently designed.
This was a problem for atheist scientists committed to a godless universe. They couldn’t deny the fact of fine-tuning — the evidence was too overwhelming. So instead, they did what academics often do when facts threaten cherished dogma: they twisted the interpretation.
Their explanation for fine-tuning? The multiverse.
Here’s the basic idea. Some theories in physics, like eternal inflation, suggest the possibility of an infinite number of universes. Now imagine, they say, that each of those universes has different laws and constants. If that’s true, then it’s no surprise that we find ourselves in one that works. After all, we couldn’t exist in any of the countless dud universes without atoms, stars, or life.
Sounds clever. But even if you accept the assumption that an infinite number of unobservable universes exist, there’s still a bigger problem: what’s the actual scientific evidence that the universal laws of nature vary from one universe to another? After all, they’re called “constants” for a reason. Every measurement and observation we have tells us that these numbers don’t change.
Here’s where it gets wild.
One of their main arguments for why the constants must vary is the fact that our universe is fine-tuned. That’s right. The very evidence that screams design is now used to argue for infinite cosmic randomness.
MIT physicist Max Tegmark, writing in Scientific American, makes this move explicitly. He uses fine-tuning itself as evidence for a multiverse with varying constants:
“Cosmologists infer the presence of Level II parallel universes by scrutinizing the properties of our universe. These properties…have exactly the values that sustain life. That suggests the existence of other universes with other values.”
Let that sink in. The very fact that our universe is perfectly calibrated for life is now used as evidence that other, totally different universes must exist. First, the multiverse was a way to explain away fine-tuning. Now, fine-tuning is offered as proof of the multiverse.
What’s the logic? Since they’ve already ruled out an intelligent cause, the constants must vary — because there’s simply no other way to explain why these numbers are so perfectly set. That’s what passes for logic in elite academia.
How did this inversion become acceptable in a field that prides itself on rationality? Because the foundational assumption is never questioned: God cannot exist. And sometimes, physicists say this outright.
In response to the fine-tuning argument for God, Perimeter Institute physicist Lee Smolin writes the following:
“This argument is valid only if there is no way to explain how the laws of nature might have been chosen except by invoking the action of some entity outside our universe. You may recall the principle with which I started this book: there is nothing outside the universe. As long as there is a way of answering all our questions without violating this principle, we are doing science and we have no need of any other mode of explanation.”
Smolin isn’t making a scientific argument. He’s laying out a philosophical bias. And he’s clear about it. On the very first page of the book, he boldly writes: “It cannot have been made by anything that exists outside of it, for by definition the universe is all there is, and there cannot be anything outside it.”
In other words, the existence of God isn’t ruled out by evidence. It’s ruled out by definition.
If you start your investigation by excluding the possibility of God, then yes, an infinite number of other universes with different constants becomes necessary. Not because the evidence points there, but because no other option is allowed. But ask yourself: is there any more absurd conclusion to draw from one perfectly ordered universe than the claim it suggests an infinite number of chaotic ones?
Science is supposed to follow the evidence, not twist it to fit a predetermined worldview. And if your worldview forces you to reinterpret what the evidence plainly shows, maybe it’s time to question the worldview.
Start with an open and honest question: Does the universe show signs of an intelligent cause? Once you do, the answer becomes clear. Fine-tuning is not evidence for a multiverse. It is powerful evidence for God.
Rabbi Elie Feder, PhD, and Rabbi Aaron Zimmer, host the “Physics to God” podcast.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
