Canuck, you seem to have a strangely paranoid view of science. You seem to be saying that science cooked up a multiverse theory to get away from the idea of a directional, created universe as implied by the anthropic principle. But all the anthropic principle says is that to us the evolution of the universe cannot but seem directional, because if it hadn't resulted in us being here, we wouldn't be here to observe it. With hindsight, it appears directional though in fact the outcome is the result of a string of random events and natural evolution, and could have turned out a myriad other ways. It is fallacious (and pretty arrogant) to conclude that because our environment fits us so perfectly, it must have been intentionally designed to accomodate us. Evolution explains quite neatly (and with lots of empirical support) how life on earth adapted itself to the prevailing environmental circumstances.
(As an afterthought: If Earth had been specifically designed to accomodate us, the designer might have done his job a lot better. Why didn't he create an earth without microbes that cause disease; without cancer-inducing UV rays from the Sun; with less limited resources and without large unfertile areas... etc. etc.?)
Paranoia would imply irrationality and delusion. The counterpoint to that is knowledge and experience.
Granted, I am exaggerating and yanking chains to make a point, but the fundamental point I have been making is valid: “science” is dominated by particular belief systems and ideologies, and anyone who challenges those does so at their peril.
Yes, I am saying that the multiverse theory was cooked up in order to explain the observed facts in a manner that is consistent with prevailing ideology.
There is a prevailing view in “science” that the universe, and all in it, is a manifestation of random mechanical/chemical/physical processes; and that “life” and “consciousness” is the result of similar processes.
This is an ideological position, not a position based on “science”. The available facts have been interpreted to fit the prevailing ideology, and alternative and equally valid explanations are actively discouraged.
This ideological bias is reflected in your own comments noted above. You state that “in fact the outcome is....etc”.
Well, no; it is not “in fact” anything.
Your viewpoint is only one interpretation of the available facts, and your interpretation is made from within the confines of the current ideology. That does not make your interpretation “in fact”.
Furthermore you state that: “It is fallacious (and pretty arrogant) to conclude .... etc”. That may be true; but an alternative interpretation of the facts could be that the universe was created with a particular end point in mind, and life on earth is but one point on the line leading to that endpoint.
Also, you state that: “Evolution explains quite neatly... etc”. Well, no it doesn’t.
The current ideology of Darwinian evolution was formulated more than 150 years ago when our body of scientific knowledge was still pretty small and primitive. It seemed a reasonable explanation for the facts as they were understood at the time.
However, we now know a lot more about biology, cell biology, biochemistry, chemistry, physics, and statistics than was even imagined at that time.
The facts we now have available reduce the Darwinian theories to little more than the quaint musings of the ignorant.
It is significant to note that Darwin proposed his theories at a time when the world was undergoing a cultural revolution away from the then prevalent and dominant influence of religion. There was a backlash against all things religious, particularly amongst those with a “scientific” predisposition.
Darwin came along at the right time with an alternative view of the universe. Accordingly, his views were enthusiastically embraced by those who were seeking a secular view of existence. So one form of religion was substituted for another.
The tragedy is that the Darwinian theories are still taken seriously by a large percentage of the scientific community, and thereby precludes rational investigation of alternative explanations of the facts.
If the available facts underpinning the anthropic principle are viewed without the current ideological bias, they are highly suggestive of a consciously designed structure And this is why the principle is the subject of heated debate within the scientific community.
The core of the debate is that it implies that we scientists should start to use the “G” word; and this is anathema to the secular high priests of science.
Clearly, these ideological biases in science are major barriers to our understanding of the universe in that they actively preclude those areas of investigation that do not fit within the current ideology.