Dan, your URL is amusing, in that it tries to use natural selection
and the fossil record to make its case. Of course there are diadromous
species of fish. There are also species which are extremely particular
about salinity. So are you suggesting that they recently evolved
that way? Most creationists are in complete denial of species
evolving at all.

Next with the Noah story we have all sorts of questions. There
are literally millions of species, how did they all fit on the boat
along with their food? Did Noah do a special trip to drop off the
koalas, kangaroos etc to Australia?

BTW, I suggest that you google some photos of an alligator gar fish
and explain to me what that is all about.

Sorry guys,
I'll have to forego further discussion here or elsewhere for the foreseeable. Much as I'd love to defend my position--and I'm absolutely confident I can--I can no longer spare the time. The subject matter, however, is central to my research and hopefully I can air some of it on OLO at a later date.
All the best.

Hi Luciferase,

Thanks for the quotes. Nobody doubts that Krauss and Dawkins have many critics, theist or not, philosophically sophisticated or not. That was not my point. I was just curious about defining and redefining “nothing”. I have to admit I did not read Krauss’s book, so I have to rely on what David Albert (your second link) wrote:

[Krauss] complains that "some philosophers and many theologians define and redefine 'nothing' as not being any of the versions of nothing that scientists currently describe," and that "now, I am told by religious critics that I cannot refer to empty space as 'nothing,' but rather as a 'quantum vacuum,' to distinguish it from the philosopher's or theologian's idealized ‘nothing’…”

It is not clear that in his “define and redefine” he means - as you have claimed - that philosophers and theologians redefined HIS (Krauss’) definition. However, whether these philosophers and theologians referred to the theological “creatio ex nihilo” or to the philosophical “Why is there something rather than nothing” (Leibniz) they were referring to sources preceding Krauss by centuries. If you wish you can read about ‘nothing’ in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/) that also precedes Krauss’ book. If Krauss “defines” nothing as quantum vacuum or empty space, that is his prerogative, but it is he who is redefining it.
ctd

ctd
Nobody will criticise Krauss for saying that “Empty space is a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles that pop in and out of existence” (http://www.npr.org/2012/01/13/145175263/lawrence-krauss-on-a-universe-from-nothing). John A. Wheeler - known for his geometrodynamics and pregeometry when looking for a mathematical model to explain how matter could have arisen out of space-time only - said something similar: “No point is more central than this, that empty space is not empty.  It is the seat of the most violent physics.". These are statements by specialists in physics and not naive excursions into philosophy.

In my opinion, both Krauss and Dawkins would have been on a safer ground if they simply claimed that both “creatio ex nihilo” and the question “why there is something rather than nothing” do not make sense. They certainly do not within science. Instead, they seem to be philosophically (and theologically) as naive as those (fundamental?) theists who saw in the widely accepted theory of Big Bang evidence for Somebody (God) creating the Universe.

As to “God of the gaps”, this belongs to the past, the same as e.g. Laplacian determinism: not as nonsense but as something that has been superseded (in theology/metaphysics and physics respectively) by new insights.

G'day George,
some interesting research happening at Caltech recently, according to this article:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/04/does-the-early-universe-harbor-evidence-of-a-time-before-the-big-bang-todays-most-popular.html

This kind of research, and the implications of the second law of thermodynamics offers considerable wriggle room for speculation in metaphysics; platonian universes perhaps? An endless progression of Universes displaying moral or spiritual entropy?
Religions have been based on less, I think. Until our knowledge is complete, there will always be room for a God of the Gaps... particularly for those whose knowledge is most incomplete.

Hi George,

Krauss has not jumped with glee and cried "gotcha!" but has been circumspect in his book about the meaning of "nothing". I think we should give him credit for that, not compare him to rabid fundamentalists.

By his excursion into nothingness Krauss flushes out the unbending position that irregardless of however deeply physics is able explain things, the existence of its laws is "proof" of the existence of a creator.

Given that there is no such thing as proof in science, only support or falsification of hypotheses (the god hypothesis being unfalsifiable), there will forever be a gap that science will not breach to be filled with god by those that choose it, regardless of whether you say that is outmoded or not.

I think it's clear I accept defeat in the scientific quest to undermine religion. As "proof" and probability are a mathematical notions, I'll stick with my 6.9 recurring out of 7 and do what I can to bring the religious to question belief and, more so, what is done wrongly in the name of "God"