The Life Principle: This says that the universe (or our section of the multiverse) somehow has a goal, which is life. It begs the issue of how the universe got that goal, but it relieves its adherents of the necessity of believing in the monotheistic God of organized religions, replacing Him with sort of mystic belief that everything has a reason. Again, not testable by scientific observation.

The Self-Explaining Universe: This says that the universe (or multiverse) represents a "closed-loop" that creates itself, and thus provides its own reasons for existence. I don't know why respectable scientists should interest themselves in such an unlikely paradox. Obviously, it can't be tested.

The Fake Universe: Included for completeness, this idea proposes that we, the universe, are only some kind of virtual reality show created by some master gamesman. This may appeal to computer game geeks, but it is not to be taken seriously.

None of the above: Davies includes this only to be able to say he left nothing out.

So those who would use all the wonderful things we now know about nature to understand first origins continue to face the same mysteries that mankind has faced since he first was able to remember the past and contemplate the future. The theories scientists have so far developed are purely speculative and not testable by observations.

Nobody has taken a scientifically designed Gallup style poll of which of these ideas people who call themselves scientists like. There have been some informal guesses that 50-60% of scientists continue to believe in God (which religious group, unspecified). This is not much different than the results of polls of the entire population. In any event scientists have been unable agree upon a theory of what, or who, started the Big Bang or why the laws so far discovered are true to the furthest corners of the universe that can be tested by the scientific method. The speculations of scientists on these matters may be learned, but they are only speculations, no better than those of any man or woman in the street.

Personally, I like the alternative, intelligent design, which goes back to God. Although as Davies points out belief in God this cuts off further scientific debate, it is not a lazy man's alternative. It rather transfers the discussion from science to theology and age-old concepts of God. I see no reason to drop all of the deep thought that has taken place over centuries into understanding the nature of God. People who want to start over using only the current views of science often fail to understand how profound that thought is. Science has yet to answer the fundamental questions: How did it all start? What is man's place in the scheme of things? What are proper morals for humans?

If you are bent on believing in God, and count me as one who is so bent, then the laws that science uncovers are God's laws, unchanging since the original creative event.

Page 6
Next Page

Page 1 • Page 2 • Page 3 • Page 4 • Page 5 • Page 6 • Page 7