Newtonian (classical) physics covered a great deal of ground, but some things were left unexplained. (There have been people who say that quantum physics replaced Newtonian physics, but that is incorrect.) Some of the experts in quantum physics were reluctant to accept quantum theory, but they ended up practicing the adage, "Follow where the evidence leads". This area of science is supported by empirical evidence, although there are still unresolved questions, and there is much more to learn.
Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr had many discussions and debates on the topic (Uncle Albert didn't cotton to Bohr's views). Unlike fundamentalist evolutionists who attack biblical creationists, they did not resort to ridicule and call each other, "Liar!" Indeed, they had great respect for each other and kept their disagreements to the subjects at hand.
Some Christians are put off by quantum physics Perhaps this is because of uncertainties (the above "Bad Joke Dog" image notwithstanding), but all sciences have uncertainties. However, some people are slipping in some spooky stuff with Eastern mystical views and "New Age" practices in books likeThe Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav, The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra, Quantum Healing by Deepak Chopra, and others. But the abuses of science (or numerous other things that can be mentioned) do not negate the validity of the discipline, nor its results. I'll let Dr. Jonathan Sarfati take it from here.
Quantum mechanics is one of the brand new ideas to emerge in physics in the 20th century. But is it something creationists should believe? I argue “yes” for two reasons:To read the rest, click on "Should creationists accept quantum mechanics?" You may also be interested in this recent post, "Quantum and Classical Realities: Reconciled at Last?"
1. The evidence supports it: QM solved problems that baffled classical physics, and has passed numerous scientific tests.Although quantum mechanics is rather outside the scope of our ministry, since it concerns operational science rather than origins, we do receive questions about QM quite often. And we also sometimes receive requests to sponsor various critics of this field. This paper tries to summarize, with as little technical detail as possible, why QM was developed, the overwhelming evidence for it, as well as the lack of any viable alternative. Finally, the pragmatic issue: jumping on an anti-QM bandwagon would just make our job harder and provide not the least benefit to the creation cause.
2. Fighting against an operational science idea would mean fighting a battle on two fronts. So there is nothing to be gained by diverting our energies, in an area that does nothing to further the creation cause.