A few days ago I was struck by the number of parallels between
galactic formation and abiogenesis:
--NO EMPIRICAL MODEL. Although we've got good empirical models for
stellar formation and evolution, which we can match to observable
objects, this is not the case for galactic formation.
--LACK OF INTERMEDIATES. We see stars in various states of formation,
but not so for galaxies. We've got a nearly uniform early universe,
and we've got fully formed galaxies and galactic clusters (which show
structure on all distance scales) some time later, but absolutely NO
"intermediate" objects observed or known.
--UNCERTAINTY OF MECHANISMS. Cosmologists all expect that, once you
get the right sort of density fluxuations in the early universe,
gravitational collapse will take care of the rest. (Although I'm
not sure if even this much has been modeled in detail.)
But what is the source of these early fluctuations? Quantum fluctuations
during the inflationary stage? Cosmic strings or other "topological"
features? There's plenty of speculation, but nothing certain.
--SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME. Hubble deep field photographs show fully formed
galaxies in the quite distant past. The age of the oldest stars also sets
a lower limit on the age of the galaxies. This age is getting pushed back
right to the limits set on the age of the universe. The amount of time
left for galactic formation is getting pretty short, to the point where
cosmologists are starting to get worried whether or not there's enough
time left for gravitational collapse to do its thing.
--------
A lot of good, pointed questions have been thrown at the TE/EC crowd
over the last few months, so now I want to throw some pointed questions
at the ID/PC crowd.
First, regarding how decisions are made:
1. Do you expect that the problem of "galactic formation" will eventually
be solved using only the normal operation of natural processes, or do
you expect that the data will eventually show that supernatural
intervention was inolved?
1a. If you expect that galactic formation will eventually solved with
natural processes, what are your reasons for having different
expectations with abiogenesis? Is it primarily scientific intuition,
or do you also have serious philosophical and theological reasons
for the difference?
1a1. If the difference is primarily one of scientific intuition, do
you also use philosophical and theological arguments in your
discussions, or to you pretty much stick to scientific arguments?
1a2. If you have philosophical and theological reasons for the different
expectations, what are they, and what scriptural basis can you give?
1b. If you expect that galactic formation might very well have involved
supernatural intervention, could you explain further why?
Second, regarding the nature of the origins discussion:
2. Suppose an individual or a group strongly advocated that supernatural
intervention was necessary for galactic formation; they publicly
debated this point with cosmologists, wrote articles, and spoke to
church groups. Suppose that some of these individuals also argued that,
since the data does not support "naturalistic" galacitic formation,
the primary reason for its widespread belief must be that it is a
necessary element of the Materialistic origins myth, and that Christians
who believe it must have their philosophy and theology tainted by
Philosophical Naturalism. What would be the best way to respond?
Well, that should cause some ripples in the pond.
Loren Haarsma