I have encountered many PC & ID arguments which essentially consisted of
emphasizing two points:
1) Abiogenesis and macroevolution have not been proven (in fact, they
are a long way from being proven) and some parts of them are completely
speculative.
2) Philosophical naturalism requires something like macroevolution +
abiogenesis to be true in order to maintain itself.
macroevolution is believed is PRIMARILY because of philosophical
naturalism, in spite of (rather than because of) the scientific
evidence.
Some Christians came along and pointed out that they were not
philosophical naturalists, and that they did believe that macroevolution
is probably true --- because of the scientific evidence, combined with
the usual Christian theological perspectives (God's design, sustaining,
and providential oversight) which are brought to every other scientific
areas (astronomy, physics, medicine, cosmology, etc).
Well, that two-point argument above was so alluring, that, rather than
admit it to be an over-simplification, the charge was sometimes brought
that those "theistic evolutionists" must have a theology tainted by
Naturalism and a judgment which crumbles in the face of professional
peer pressure.
So I brought up the topic of galactic formation for two reasons. First,
--- with a single, clear counter-example --- to expose that vindictive
little two-point argument for the over-simplistic non-sequitur that it
is. I want to drive home the fact that there are other factors (besides
scientific evidence on one end and philosophical bias on the other)
which go into such decisions. This is essential for the discussion to
move forward. Second, the topic of galactic formation should help us
understand and deliniate just WHAT those other factors are.
-----------
Galactic formation by natural processes is unproven, and fairly
speculative. Philosophical naturalism requires something like it to be
true in order to maintain itself. Yet nearly all advocates of PC and ID
expect such a "naturalistic" explanation to eventually be found.
So what gives? What are the differences between galactic formation and
abiogenesis/macroevolution, which lead PCs to different expectations?
By combining the answer Steve gave to this post, plus earlier
discussions with Steve and Russ Maatman, here's a provisional list of
important differences:
1. Scientific intuition, plain and simple. When the scientific evidence
is ambigious, different people can honestly have different expectations of
how it will eventually turn out. (A PC intuitively expects galactic
formation to be resolved one way, abiogenesis another. A TE has different
expectations on abiogenesis.)
I realize that "scientific intuition" is not sharply demarked. It
blends smoothly into "evidence" (and knowledge of evidence) on one end,
and philosophical bias on the other. But it is a rather substantial
grey area inbetween, and it deserves separate mention.
2. Complexity arguments. The idea that, because life is so much more
complex than galaxies, it requires a different order of explanation.
I'd classify this somewhere in the "scientific intuition" category close
to the philosophical end of the spectrum.
3. Hermeneutics. The argument is made that the Genesis text favors
miraculous intervention in biological history, but does not do so for
galactic formation.
4. Apologetics and general interest. A "naturalistic" explanation for
abiogenesis would have far more impact than one for galactic formation.
The apologetic stakes are higher.
5. Relative value. God cares more about living things.
6. Human "specialness." Beliefs about abiogenesis and macroevolution
are logically separable from beliefs about humanity's special place in
creation, universal morality, etc. But they are much "closer" to those
important beliefs than are beliefs about galactic formation.
If someone wants to add to this list of "important differences between
galactic formation and abiogenesis," or expand on one of these, go for
it.)
----------------
VERY briefly, an evaluation: I think #3 (hermeneutic argument) fails to
convince in view of the parallel language used for creation of the fish,
birds, and land creatures with the creation of the earth's dry land,
ocean, and atmosphere. (Additionally, in the "language of appearances,"
galaxies appear to be stars. :-) I think #4 is true so far
as it goes, but is a poor guide to determining truth. I think #5
and #6 make useful intuitive arguments, but don't convince in the long
run. IMO, the real meat of the long-standing differences of opinion lie
in #1 and #2. The other four can have a strong influence on forming the
initial opinion, but the first two are the cement which holds it there,
one way or the other.
P.S. Within the last two weeks, I read an article about a possible
"intermediate" in galacitic formation. It seems a group has observed
eight very distant (very early) star clusters which are close enough to
eventually gravitationally collapse into each other, but which are on
average smaller than the average present-day galaxy. This suggests,
just maybe, that stars formed first, and galaxies second, rather than
the other way around.
Ah, observation: bane and boon of theory-making. :-)
Loren Haarsma