On Thu, 15 Aug 1996 16:41:38 -0400 (EDT), lhaarsma@OPAL.TUFTS.EDU wrote:
LH>I've mentioned galactic formation in this group several times in
>the past, but no one has ever tackled the topic to my satisfaction
>(although Steve Jones has come the closest).
My point was that whether "galactic formation" was or was not
fully naturalistic has no necessary connection with whether the
origin and development of life was also fully naturalistic. Reasons
I gave for this (from memory) were:
1. A galaxy is far simpler that the simplest living thing. While
there are no doubt problems in understanding the complexity of galaxy
formation, biological complexity is in an an entirely different
league, as Dawkins affirms:
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance
of having been designed for a purpose. Physics is the study of
simple things that do not tempt us to invoke design." (Dawkins R.,
"The Blind Watchmaker", Penguin: London, 1991, p1)
2. Biblically it is a non-issue. Genesis 1 (and indeed the whole/p
Bible) is concerned almost totally with *this Earth*. The
stars are deliberately treated as an afterthought: "He also made the
stars" (Gn 1:16). As a PC I have no position on whether or not God
intervened to form galaxies in general or our galaxy, the Milky Way
in particular. I note that in another post you explain there are
problems with current theories of galaxy formation and there may be
no known naturalistic explanation. I would be happy to consider a
supernatural explanation in those circumstances, but I would not see
it as devastating if a naturalistic explanation was later found.
3. The only possible exception is the Earth's moon. Hugh Ross has
pointed out that the moon's size and distance was critical to the
development of life on Earth. If the theory that the moon was formed
an asteroid hitting the Earth and ejecting a lump of matter which
became the moon, then the trajectory, speed and size of the
asteroid and the impact site had to be just right. Incidentally, the
same impact may have caused the Earth's tilt on its axis which also
created the seasons. If this theory is confirmed then it would be
strong evidence for supernatural intervention by an Intelligent
Designer. What does your astrophysicist wife say about this?
LH>So I'll try again. I do think this topic can shed some light
>(more than heat, I hope) on (1) the actual reasons why people prefer
>ID & PC over EC, and vice-versa; and (2) the nature of the origins
>discussion within the church.
I don't know "why people prefer ID & PC over EC" but I know why I do.
The Bible depicts God as a Person who can and does intervene
supernaturally in the affairs of this world. To rule that out (or at
least minimise it to only those few events explicitly stated in the
Bible), under the influence of the metaphysics of present-day
scientific naturalism, is IMHO a fundamentally wrong (ie. half-true)
way of thinking.
LH>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.
>--------
All very interesting but the main difference between life and
non-life is not mentioned. The defining quality of living things
is that they contain information in a genetic code which species its
own production, whereas galaxies don't:
"Grasse insisted that the defining quality of life is the
intelligence encoded in its biochemical systems, an intelligence that
cannot be understood solely in terms of its material embodiment. The
minerals that form a great cathedral do not differ essentially from
the same materials in the rocks and quarries of the world; the
difference is human intelligence, which adapted them for a given
purpose. Similarly,
`Any living being possesses an enormous amount of `intelligence,'
very much more than is necessary to build the most magnificent of
cathedrals. Today, this `intelligence' is programmed as in a
computer, but rather it is condensed on molecular scale in the
chromosomal DNA or in that of eve] other organelle in each cell.
This "intelligence" is the sine qua non of life. Where does it come
from? ...This is a problem that concerns both biologists and
philosophers, and, at present science seems incapable of solving
it.... If to determine the origin of information in a computer is
not a false problem, why should the search for the information
contained in cellular nuclei be one?, (Grasse P.P., "The Evolution
of Living Organisms", Academic Press: NY, 1977, p2).
(Johnson P.E., "Darwinism's Rules of Reasoning", in Buell J. &
Hearn V., eds., "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?", Foundation
for Thought and Ethics: Richardson TX, 1994, pp6-7)
If a naturalistic explanation for the formation of galaxies were
found it would rate about five lines in the middle pages of any daily
newspaper. If a naturalistic explanation of the origin of life and
its information were discovered, it would be be page 1 news. Just
consider all the hype about the possible discovery of a fossil
bacteria in a meteorite that came from Mars.
LH>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?
Personally it doesn't matter to[ me one way or the other. Nothing
theological is riding on it, AFAIK. If "supernatural intervention"
in "galactic formation" was indicated by a total lack of naturalistic
alternatives, then I would regard that as a bonus. But if a
naturalistic explanation was found, then that would be OK. Indeed,
until I read this post, I assumed there was a naturalistic
explanation for galaxy formation.
LH>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?
In some ways this is a trick question (although I am sure you didn't
intend it, Loren <g>). To equate the origin of life with the
formation of galaxies is worse than equating chalk and cheese. Life
is special - the martian meteorite proved that. Jesus said that God
was concerned for the simplest living things like flowers (Mt
6:28-30), birds (Mt 10:29-31) and oxen (Dt 25:4). Life is a unique
underived attribute of the Father and even the Son does not have it
originally (Jn 5:26). It is life, and only life, that is the unique
analogy of our future eternal relationship with God (Jn 3:15-16;
10:28; 17:2-3).
LH>1b. If you expect that galactic formation might very well have
>involved supernatural intervention, could you explain further why?
See above. I don't "expect" it.
LH>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?
YECs by definition presumably believe that "supernatural intervention
was necessary for galactic formation". Apart from them, the question
directed at "the ID/PC crowd" is hypothetical. AFAIK, no PC claims
that "supernatural intervention was necessary for galactic
formation". I certainly don't.
LH>Well, that should cause some ripples in the pond.
May I send a counter-"ripple" back Loren and ask you if you think
that life is just a complex "Materialistic" process, fully explicable
by the laws of physics and chemistry, and in principle the same as
the origin of galaxies? If so, why? If not, then what was the point
of the comparison? :-)
God bless.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------