To this, Dave Probert add the whimsical comment:
"I find it interesting to consider this question in light of the Cold
Fusion controversy. Cold Fusion was like a miracle with the religious
overtones removed."
Of course, the problem posed by Weinberg's attitude is that there is no
way, based solely on observation, to distinguish between natural and
miraculous events. Lots of events are not repeatable but are readily
viewed as natural. For example, how would we go about repeating the
massive flattening of trees that occurred in a remote region of Russia
back in the early part of this century. Was this a natural event or
miracle? While there are naturalistic theories, which scientist is
capable of repeating this according to any proposed explanation?
Particle physicist Steven Weinberg's made a major splash within the
cosmological community when he applied ideas from particle physics to the
early nanoseconds and minutes of the universe, following the big bang.
These are describe in his book _The first three minutes : a modern view of
the origin of the universe_. None of what he wrote about in this book,
beyond the particle physics, is repeatable.
Why is this approach viewed within the context of naturalism rather than
as miracle? Part of any satisfactory answer must surely focus on a variety
of historical and sociological factors. But the main reason is linked to
the explanatory and predictive content of his approach. By applying ideas
from "particle physics", he was able to make fascinating "predictions"
about the early minutes following the big bang - when no repetition (nor
observation) is possible.
So was he dealing with natural events or the miraculous?
Not surprisingly, some say - scientists included - he was merely dealing
with fancy.
Gordie