The development of life on Earth falls squarely into that category.
As for the other topics, I've expounded upon them at length in these threads before, and I don't have the time to reproduce them here. I'll give the short answers:
"Before the Big Bang": geometrically, there is no "before the Big Bang", for the same reason there is no "south of the South Pole".
Quantum Mechanics: it is logically impossible to describe QM in terms of quotidian phenomena like particles and waves, because quantum objects are more fundamental than the quotidian phenomena. Those phenomena are made up of quantum objects. You cannot describe the more fundamental in terms of the less fundamental; this is basic philosophy.
Extra dimensions: these are experimentally testable. Most of my research in physics over the last two years has been to design a machine that can perform these tests.
Mathematics: I agree with you. As a deist, I believe in "God the Geometer". God is the sum of all possible mathematical Truth. However, I have never seen any scientist attempt to make an argument against this (except in defense of a different religious faith).
No, that is just one (entirely unproved) theory (a la Hawking). We don't know if time started with the big bang or it didn't.
THe point is, wave functions exist in a realm of reality that we cannot touch or directly prove exists. We can only infer that they exist.
I have always liked your inputs on these threads and this is one example of why. This despite the anti-Creationist rhetoric, which is, I believe, disdain for the blind acceptance of any authority. This latter is OK by me, for that is how we learn (i.e. by adopting a perspective and taking it to its logical conclusion -- and THIS is definitively IMHO). As to your post, I would agree with you insofar as God must have a strong and deep mathematical aspect. Where we distinctly part ways is in the inference that that is as far as it goes.
Your God is too small!
My God is also the "sum of all possible mathematical Truth:" because He is the author of the laws that define that Truth, but He is so much more. You ought to consider that there may be more to your God than you thought.
The reason that there is order in the universe is because that is the way it was created. Random chance would not create the ordered universe that we observe today, and are able to quantify so well.
Peace.
Dude... You have a cool job!
Are you not talking about tightly curled up dimensions? What is our entire universe is embedded in a larger multidimensional universe (with fully expanded dimensions)? But your research certainly sounds interesting! How will it test for such?
Certainly a possibility... But could you imagine a God who chose or influenced the design for the universe, including its mathematical design - but who resided above or outside of that design?
The development of life on Earth falls squarely into that category.
Development, yes. Causality, no.
What I see is that the contenders on each side of the "issue" (a non-issue in my estimation) really fail to recognize that they're using and misusing disparate disciplines to reach disparate conclusions. Science is (or ought to be) about deducing the physical mechanisms that produce observable phenomena in the natural world. Theistic creationism is (or ought to be) about asserting that the natural world was created by a living God.
So did you walk to school, or bring your lunch? If each side would recognize the limits of their disciplines, they'd see that the reason they can't agree is because the two premises have nothing to do with one another. It's as though, in examining a car, the mechanic says "It runs on gasoline, which it uses to fuel a water-cooled internal combustion engine," to which the company exec replies "No, it was designed by the Ford Motor Company and produced in Dearborn, Michigan!"
At which point the mechanic and the exec get into a fistfight.
[sigh]