I should first qualify: I am no more than a layman, but I hope my arguments are reflective, at least in part, of conventional scientific thinking.

As I see it, it is true the objects of scientific study are those 'accessible to its empirical methods'. This essentially includes all of our observable, or conceivably observable, existence.

Beings defined to be transcendent, such as God or spirits, have by virtue of their definition placed themselves beyond scientific inquiry. The scientist cannot in principle reject them, but neither can he study them.

That said, I think it is premature to be certain of the existence of these supernatural entities.

If we believe they exist, that belief must be founded upon evidence; there are a great many things we do not believe in, such as Santa Claus and tooth fairies, on such grounds.

Dr Ho has not written if there is convincingly sufficient evidence to support such claims. As for causal explanations: 'the First Cause', et cetera, and the anthropic principle, I believe it would be better to postpone judgment than be certain 'science refutes the idea of a random universe...'

Science has far from exhausted its sources of ingenuity; physicists are busy addressing the perplexing questions regarding the apparent fine-tuning of the universe Dr Ho has raised.

We may yet find a deeper underlying reason other than divine benevolence. Past applications of 'God of the gaps' arguments - using a Creator to explain currently inexplicable phenomena - to biological systems have been discredited by evolutionary theory.

As an aside, I might remark that someone considering the cruel, excruciating evolution of life, the frigid emptiness of our Universe and its inexorable decay as the handiwork of an omnipotent Designer might be somewhat disappointed with His skill, and quite certainly less than reverent of His motives.

I believe with the lessening of dogmatism on both sides, science and religion may yet achieve peaceful co-existence.

More flexible, metaphorical interpretations of religious texts, for example, have allowed room for scientific explanations in the religious world-view.

However, there may come a time when science has progressed far enough to address the most fundamental questions, including our morals, consciousness and existence. What that portends for the scientific-religious debate is beyond my speculation.

Wong Da Wei