Yazata:
Eugene seems strangely reluctant/incapable of clearly stating what his own ideas are, let alone defending them. So at risk of putting words into his mouth, I'll speculate about what he's up to.
He seems to believe that "quantum creationism" is a belief that all atheists hold, or at least that all atheists of the more scientistic variety. (The 'big bang' was the origin of the universe and it just sort of happened: 'Bang' -> The origin of all of reality ex nihilo.) I get the impression is that Eugene assumes that all Sciforums participants believe that and that we are all interchangeable in that regard. That seems to be his target, who and what he's attacking.
I explicitly told him that I do not believe in his "quantum creationism", as he has defined it. My objections are back up there on page 2 of the thread and remain unaddressed by Eugene. As far as I am aware, he hasn't yet pointed out any particular person who does believe in it, apart from himself.
I speculate that he perceives "quantum creationism" as little more than divine creation with the 'divine' forceably removed and replaced with 'quantum'. Either way it's still a miraculous event. Hence belief in it is still a religious belief, if we want to define religious belief that way.
I agree. It seems to me that Eugene thinks "quantum" somehow means God, as in the usual religious God. It doesn't.
Hence atheists are guilty of the same 'crimes' that they accuse theists of committing and scientific accounts of origins are no more plausible than the religious ones.
I don't think that this line of argument is totally without merit.
Scientific cosmological models are just that: models of how the universe evolved from a small, compact form, into what we see today. Like all scientific models, they are provisional and subject to revision in the light of new information or insights.
The limits of our current models are well understood by physicists, and physicists are careful to specify which aspects of their ideas are speculative and which are well evidenced.
We do not have a consensus scientific model of what, if anything, caused the big bang. It is well recognised that general relativistic models break down at small length scales, such as existed at the big bang. It is also recognised that we need new models that combine our knowledge of quantum fields and relativity.
The lack of definitive scientific models does not prevent scientists from speculating about what a future scientific theory might show. There are many such speculations, partly based on scientific extrapolation from existing theory, and partly driven more by philosophical considerations.
Cosmologists do not
believe in any particular model of the first-cause origin of the universe, recognising that no such verified model exists at present. On the contrary, they explicitly admit that they
just don't know yet. This is business as usual for the research scientist. All research occurs at the frontiers of knowledge; that's what research is for.
If Eugene wants to believe the God did it, he is welcome to his belief. He is not entitled to infer that atheists, or scientists in general, share his faith, regardless of what label he wants to stick on it. Adding "quantum" to creationism doesn't make it any more scientifically respectable.