Thanks for the response, John. Your statement suggests that the theory of quantum vacuum created something from nothing as Laurence Krauss has argued is settled science. I beg to differ. John Horgan of Scientific American is no apologist for creation, but here is what he says:

…Krauss asks us to take the quantum theory of creation seriously, and so does evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. “Even the last remaining trump card of the theologian, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?,’ shrivels up before your eyes as you read these pages,” Dawkins writes in an afterword to Krauss’s book. “If On the Origin of Species was biology’s deadliest blow to supernaturalism, we may come to see A Universe From Nothing as the equivalent from cosmology.”

Whaaaa…??!! Dawkins is comparing the most enduringly profound scientific treatise in history to a pop-science book that recycles a bunch of stale ideas from physics and cosmology. This absurd hyperbole says less about the merits of Krauss’s derivative book than it does about the judgment-impairing intensity of Dawkins’s hatred of religion.

Even Sean Carroll, as strong an atheist and physicalist as you will find, comments that Krauss’ argument that something comes from nothing to be more about his evangelical atheism than good science.