1. Re-stating the Problem:  Recent developments suggest the universe is completely self-contained and can be exhaustively explained and understood in terms of the laws of physics.

2. So, for example, see the modern "inflationary" theories of the origins of the universe:  "quantum tunneling from nothing."

3. Take note, however:  The modern vacuum is not absolutely nothing!

1. Change:  Whenever there is a change, there must be some "thing" which changes, an underlying "material" out of which the new thing comes.

2. Creation:  Creation is the radical causing of the whole reality of whatever exists.  To be the complete cause of something's very existence is not to produce a change;  to create is not to work on or alter some already existing "material."  If there were a prior something which was used in the act of producing a new thing, then the agent doing the producing would not be the complete cause of the new thing.

3. The difference between creation and the building of a house.

4. God is the complete cause of the being of whatever exists.
 
5. Are things the cause of their own being?  Do they exist by necessity?   If not, then there must be some cause of why there is something rather than nothing.
 
6. Explanations in natural science and the "being" of the laws of physics.

2. Many people think that creation ex nihilo is equivalent to creation "in time."  Not true.

3. The two proper meanings of creation ex nihilo:
    a) Out of what is the thing made?  Nothing.
    b) What is the thing apart from its being caused to exist?  Nothing.

4. Note:  Creation is not exclusively some distant event;  it is the continual, complete causing of the very being of whatever exists.

4. Natural science can never know whether this continual, complete causing of the very being of whatever exists began at a certain point in time.

5. Quite frankly, it is hard to know how we can even talk about the "beginning" of time.

1. The Big Bang is not describing creation (in the Christian sense of the term), but change.

2. There is something for God to do (namely, continually create the Being of whatever exists).

3. Modern science does not touch the notion of a Creator.

4. The other side of the coin:  Theology need not object to any of the explorations of modern science.  They should welcome them.

5. However, modern scientists should know what they can do (and often do well) and what they really can't do (and thus often, in trying to do, do badly).  That is to say, they shouldn't draw  philosophical or metaphysical conclusions from their data.  Just as biologists should draw biological conclusions from biological data (not conclusions proper to chemistry or physics); just as chemists should draw chemical conclusions from chemical data (not conclusions proper to physics);  so too physicists should draw physical conclusions from the data of physics (not conclusions proper to philosophy or metaphysics).

(a) Example 1:  Different phenotypes necessarily implies different genotypes.  Biological data (different phenotype) is being used to draw a conclusion (different genotype) that only biochemistry (in particular, the sub-discipline of genetics) can actually prove.

(b) Example 2:  Analysis of the light spectra emitted by various chemicals shows that each chemical has a unique pattern.  Why?  And why does carbon show the specific pattern it shows, while oxygen shows a very different one?  This question can only be answered by sub-atomic particle physics (in particular, the sub-discipline of quantum electrodynamics).

(c) Similarly:  Analysis of change in the universe cannot tell you whether or not the universe has a Creator (in the sense of an ultimate cause of the Being of whatever exists.)  Nor can a simple study of the matter of the universe reveal to you whether or not the universe contains non-material realities.  Reductivist materialism and Naturalism are philosophical positions;  they are not required by the methodology of science.  They are philosophical positions certain scientists bring to their scientific study, not conclusions derived from their scientific study. 

(d) Analogously, the notion of the pre-eminence of the Aryan race -- indeed, the very notion of the existence of something called the "Aryan Race" (as opposed to merely an Aryan language group) -- was something certain scientists brought to their scientific study, not a conclusion derived from their scientific study.  Sadly, this sort of thing -- confusing scientific conclusions and philosophical presuppositions -- happens more frequently than we would like to think.