RE: Cambridge Publishes Neo-Creationism -- The Rest

Kevin L. O'Brien (klob@lamar.colostate.edu)
Sat, 31 Oct 1998 11:14:31 -0700

"But do I correctly understand you to say above that there is observational evidence of matter's creation to buttress this theory?"

That is one of those "secondary predictions" that has been verified, yes.

"Okay. So if I'm taking this all in correctly we have a theory that the universe exists for no known reason(the baby-universe theory) and a theory that an unnumbered series of universes have existed(the oscillating universe theory) but no evidence for the existence of parallel universes."

No direct physical evidence, no, but we do have evidence in the form of mathematical models that are logically consistent, that accurately predict the history and structure of the universe, and which have made secondary predictions that have been verified with physical evidence. For a cosmologist, this is as good as physical evidence.

Kevin L. O'Brien