Re: Dembski and Nelson at MIT and Tufts

Kevin O'Brien (
Sun, 4 Apr 1999 15:23:48 -0600

>It is true that now both Christians and atheists can do good science.
>However, it might be that only those who believed in a Creator and wanted
>know His work would develop experimentation. One can assume that the
>question of origins is a scientific question and proceed with it. However,
>that assumption does not make it so if it isn't. If God created out of
>nothing, how can science come up with that fact from the purely scientific

It may not be able to, but it certainly can explain what happened after
creation ex nihilo, which is what modern cosmology as succeeded in doing.
We may not know how the Big Bang originated, but we know what happened after
it originated.

>It is interesting, however, that the notion of creation out of nothing
>is creeping into physics.

You are talking about virtual particles; these are explained by wholely
naturalistic, mechanistic forces.

>What makes you think that the question of origins
>is truly a scientific question? Is that self-evident to you?

Since we are talking about the origin of the physical universe, we can at
least in principle assume a physical cause. So far, this assumption has not
been contradicted. On top of that, why should origins be the only concept
that could have a spiritual explanation? Why not photosynthesis, nerve
induction, muscle action, ontological development, etc., all of which were
claimed by some to be explanable only in terms of miracles, at least until
the natural, mechanistic explanations were discovered. If there is no other
example in nature of a phenomenon controled by spiritual forces, why
automatically assume that origins must be?

Kevin L. O'Brien