On Wed, 4 Mar 1998 08:48:44 -0500 (EST), Loren Haarsma wrote:
LH>A general request to everyone: If you're going to summarize
>someone else's viewpoint AND attribute their name to it, be very
>careful in your choice of words.
I am surprised to hear from you Loren! Last time we corresponded
you said that you were not going to read my posts!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:45:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Loren Haarsma <lhaarsma@OPAL.TUFTS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Irredeemably tainted words.
To: evolution <evolution@ursa.calvin.edu>
[...]
A year ago I stopped reading your posts all together unless they were
directed at me (and sometimes even then) or introduced a new topic
such as your "mediate creation" post.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
So in case you are reading this, please note that I am *always*
"careful" in my "choice of words" and I stand by them. I may be
*wrong* in my understanding of what you said, but I am not
consciously misrepresenting you (as you state below).
It seem to be standard practice of evolutionist (both theistic and
non-theistic), to assume that creationists are morally wrong (ie.
misrepresent) than merely intellectually wrong (ie. mistake). This
is so pervasive among evolutionists, that I have no alternative but
to conclude that it reflects the advserse influence of evolutionary
thinking.
But you want to resume our debate on this point to clarify it,
that's OK by me.
LH>Steve wrote:
>
>SJ>"The pattern of structure in the universe today reflects the
>>pattern of initial seeds. In some sense, the fact that there are
>>things in the universe today is because there were primordial seeds
>>in the universe 30,000 years after the Bang. Seeds have to be
>>inserted by hand into the computer simulations of the formation of
>>structure." (Kolb R., "Planting Primordial Seeds", Astronomy,
>>February 1998, Vol. 26, No. 2, p43)
>>
>>I found this interesting in view of my debates with Theistic
>>Evolutionists in this forum, where an argument they use against the
>>likelihood of God intervening in biological history (as they
>>acknowledge he has done in human history), is that He did not need
>>to intervene in cosmological history, at least not after the Big
>>Bang. I was assured by Loren Haarsma, for example, that there are
>>computer models which demonstrate cosmological evolution as a fully
>>naturalistic process, therefore there was no reason to doubt that
>>the origin and/or development of life on Earth was not also a fully
>>naturalistic process. But now it seems that these computer models
>>all require some form of intervention by a human intelligent
>>designer!
LH>Since you generally prefer to quote people at length rather than
>summarize their views, I wonder if -- in the future -- you'd do the
>same for my views. ;-) Three parts of that sentence with my name
>sound like mild misrepresentations to me.
See above about "misrepresentations". You automatically assume a *moral*
fault (ie. "misrepresentations") on my part, rather than merely an
intellectual fault (ie. mistake).
In fact, as it turns out, you do not even make your case that I
was wrong about what you said, let alone that I misrepresented you.
SJ>{1} "... there are computer models which demonstrate cosmological
>evolution as a fully naturalistic process..."
LH>No, what I typically say is that we have good empirical reasons to
>believe that God probably used providential oversight over the regular
>and continuous operation of natural mechanisms to form the sun, moon,
>stars, and the earth's ocean, atmosphere, and dry land.
You say (or at least imply) more than that. For example, a few months
ago you wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 19:40:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Loren Haarsma <lhaarsma@retina.anatomy.upenn.edu>
To: evolution <evolution@calvin.edu>
Cc: Ron Chitwood <chitw@flash.net>
Subject: Acceptance of macroevolution
[...]
In stellar evolutionary theory, we *can* empirically distinguish between
interventionist and non-interventionist models. We have enough
knowledge about gravity, electromagnetism, and nuclear forces that we
can construct detailed, empirical models about how stars should form and
develop. We can calculate rates, sizes, lifetimes, and ratios, and
compare those predictions to astrophysical observations. We see that a
non-interventionist model fits the data, so we feel safe in concluding
that it is probably true.
[...]
We have good empirical models for how stars form and evolve by natural
processes. We have good empirical models for how the earth formed and
developed oceans and an atmosphere by natural processes. We have good
empirical models for how the heavy elements necessary for life formed by
natural processes. The common theistic perspective is that, while God
could have formed these things miraculously, God chose to use the
regular and continual operation of his natural laws in order to
accomplish these acts. Moreover, we believe that God today uses natural
processes (microevolution) under his providential governance to maintain
robust and adaptive ecologies. Thus, to many theists, macroevolutionary
theory seems more consistent with how God formed and sustains all the
other parts of the natural world.
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the above you clearly say that: "In stellar evolutionary theory"
the "a non-interventionist model fits the data", when in fact,
according to the Astronomy article, the opposite is true! In fact it is
*interventionist* models that fit the data better and indeed there are
*no* non-interventionist models that work!
LH>You might also recall that I said, on several occasions, that we
>don't yet have detailed empirical models of galactic formation.
Granted. But nevertheless the clear impression given by you is that
what models we do have support a *non*-interventionist view. The
problem is that no interventionist view even gets on the table. Who
is there to intervene? Materialists say there is no God to intervene,
and naturalists say that even if there is a God, He cannot
intervene in the cause and effect chain.
For this reason, naturalists (including the theistic variety) can
stare straight at a model that is on the face of it clearly
interventionist and declare that it is non-interventionist!
LH>(Those "primordial seeds," mentioned above, are crucial data for galactic
>formation.) There are models, but they're pretty weakly constrained
>compared to other processes/events in cosmological history.
Planting "primordial seeds" is an *intervention* by a human
intelligent designer. If all cosmological models require the
arbitrary intervention of a human intelligent designer then they are
support for intervention by a *real* Intelligent Designer.
LH>Digression into the current state of computer modeling of cosmological
>evolution: There are quite a few different models, each covering
>limited time-periods and different spatial scales. This is necessary
>because different physical processes are dominant in different epochs, and
>different assumptions are valid on different spatial scales. In order to
>calculate efficiently and accurately, the programs are specially
>written for the dominant processes of that epoch/scale. For the "initial
>condition" inputs and the assumptions made at the smallest and largest
>length scales of these models, they don't usually rely on the outputs of
>other computer models; as much as possible, they start with known
>observational data (they "insert it by hand").
That's fine. When the models all run fully automatically, then you could
claim that "non-interventionist model fits the data", not before. At present
only an *interventionist* "model fits the data"!
LH>For example, in stellar evolution, models of formation which relied only
>on gravitational collapse were fairly simple and pretty good, but didn't
>match the data completely. Now, magnetic effects are being added,
>making things difficult because magnetohydrodynamics are so
>hideously hard to model. It gets trickier as things heat up. Nuclear
>ignition at the stellar core is fairly well understood, but the dynamics
>of the outer portions of the protostar are very difficult to model until
>the dust is finally blown away. (To make matters worse, there's
>not much observational data to constrain the models because it's
>hard to see protostars and even harder to see "inside" them.)
>When stars hit their prime of life, the models are very good
>(lots of observational data helps) -- so good, in fact, that solar
>physicists are becoming quite insistent that the "missing neutrinos"
>problem is NOT a problem with their models. Other models are used for
>the end of a star's life. The first stages of a stellar explosion are
>hard to model, but then the expanding shell of material is easier to
>model and matches up very well with data (e.g. from SN1987A).
>There's no single computer model to cover the whole process. Different
>models for different epochs/scales have different levels of accuracy
>depending upon the complexity of the processes and the wealth (or dearth)
>of observational data available. Wherever possible, modelers use
>observational data, rather than results from other models (which are
>consistent with the observational data, but typically much more poorly
>constrained), for their "boundary conditions."
The fact that "There's no single computer model to cover the whole
process" only argues against your original assertion that "We have
enough knowledge about gravity, electromagnetism, and nuclear forces
that we can construct detailed, empirical models about how stars
should form and develop....We see that a non-interventionist model
fits the data, so we feel safe in concluding that it is probably
true."
The fact is that naturalists (theistic and non-theistic) *assume in
advance* that non-interventionist models are true, and keep proposing
models that best fit that original assumption. Interventionist
models do not even get thought of, let alone receive serious
attention. If this is a false analysis, please give me *one* example
of a interventionist model that has been seriously proposed in the
scientific literature.
Please note that I am not claiming that God *did* intervene by
supernaturally introducing precisely engineered "seeds" into the
early universe (because God is free to create any way He chooses).
But I am claiming that God *may* have intervened, and certainly to
date the computer models support that possibility.
LH>Galactic/large-scale-structure formation is a hard problem. There's
>only a little bit of preliminary data to constrain the long-standing
>debate about whether stars formed relatively early or relatively late
>during that process. But there is one fairly new and crucial piece of
>data for the models: the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave
>background measured by the COBE satellite. Those fluctuations are the
>"primordial seeds" of large-scale structure in the later universe.
>Cosmologists who model the universe in the earliest epochs (from age
>10^-43 seconds up to 300,000 years) have various good ideas of natural
>mechanisms which could produce those fluctuations. They have models
>which agree with the COBE data. But since the observational data from
>COBE is much more tightly constrained than the early cosmologists'
>models, cosmologists working on later epochs put the COBE data into
>their computer models "by hand."
Putting data into computer "by hand" is an analogy of *intervention* by
an Intelligent Designer. Now it may well be that this is just a temporary
place-holder until we can discover new natural laws/processes/constants
that match the data inserted by hand. OTOH it may be that all such
searches for missing natural laws/processes/constants will fail and
the only viable models are those which match intervention by an
Intelligent Designer.
LH>Given that state of affairs, I don't say "There are computer models
>which demonstrate cosmological evolution..." but rather, "We have good
>empirical reasons to believe that God probably used providential
>oversight over the regular and continuous operation of natural
>mechanisms...."
No "probably" about it! No theist would deny that "God...used
providential oversight over the regular and continuous operation of
natural mechanisms". The real question is, did He *only* use "the
regular and continuous operation of natural mechanisms"? To date the
computer models support the possibility that God's "regular and
continuous operation of natural mechanisms" were necessary but not
sufficient to bring about the cosmos as we know it.
SJ>{2} "... therefore there was no reason to doubt that the origin and/or
>development of life on Earth was not also..."
LH>No. I have argued that a consistent approach to the scientific,
>theological, and apologetic issues surrounding cosmological and
>biological history would imply the following:
>
>-If it is theologically and hermeneutically acceptable to believe that
>God probably used providential oversight over natural mechanisms to
>form the sun, moon, stars, ocean, atmosphere, and dry land, then it
>should also be acceptable to believe that God used similar means in
>forming first life, plants, and animals.
I don't find any difference in what I said to what you said, except mine
is a bit more direct.
It is not a question whether it is "theologically and hermeneutically
acceptable to believe that God probably used providential oversight
over natural mechanisms". All theists would believe that He did! The
real question is whether it is *also* "theologically and
hermeneutically acceptable to believe that God probably" intervened
at strategic points in cosmological and biological history, as He
intervened at strategic points in human history.
LH>-Given the reasons to believe "providential evolution" is probably true
>in cosmological history, we have good reason to hypothesize that God
>might have also used "providential evolution" in biological history.
But you have just admitted, and the Astronomy article asserts, that
there are no computer models that demonstrate this "`providential
evolution' is probably true in cosmological history". It seems you
are just *assuming* this to be true in advance based on naturalistic
philosophical presuppositions.
LH>As the biological data accumulates, we can evaluate whether it
>supports, undercuts, or is merely consistent with that hypothesis.
>(I've also argued that the data supports common ancestry, and that the
>data is not inconsistent with providential evolution in the empirically
>"difficult" problems of novelty and complexity.)
It seems to me, a theistic realist, that as the "data accumulates",
both biological and cosmological, that it points very strongly to the
intervention at strategic points in cosmological and biological
history by an Intelligent Designer.
LH>-There is an important difference between (on the one hand) pointing
>out that abiogenesis and the evolutionary development of novelty and
>complexity are FAR from proven, and (on the other hand) using this
>fact, and the debates over mechanisms, as arguments in favor of an
>"interventionist" model.
This theistic naturalist position assumes that naturalism is the default
position, and that discontinuities (indicating Divine intervention) are
merely apparent, not real, and will gradually be filled in with advancing
knowledge. My theistic realism position is that theism is the
default position, and that discontinuities (indicating Divine
intervention) may not be merely apparent, but may be real, and may
not be filled in with advancing knowledge.
LH>If it is theological premature and apologetically unwise to do the
>latter when it comes to galactic formation (and other parts of
>cosmological history), then some hesitancy would be in order when
>debating biological history.
This is the old God-of-the-gaps argument that if Christian apologetics
proposes discontinuities caused by supernatural intervention, science
may advance and fill the gaps, which will cast doubt on Christian
apologetics in general:
"A second reason for thinking such a change unlikely is that many
Christians in science, philosophy, and theology are still haunted by the
idea of a "God of the gaps."...Many Christians are wary of invoking
divine action in any way in science, especially in biology, fearing that
science will advance, providing the naturalistic explanations that will
make God appear once again to have been an unnecessary hypothesis.'
(Murphy N., "Phillip Johnson on Trial: A Critique of His
Critique of Darwin," Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 45,
March 1993, pp26-36, in Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance",
1995, p98)
Firstly, so what if science does advance and fill in all the gaps? It will
just show that Christian apologetics was wrong on that particular
issue.
Science is not afraid to make predictions, why should Christianity?
Secondly, there is some doubt as we near the 21st century that
science *is* closing the main gaps: 1. the origin of the universe;
2. the origin of life; 3. the origin of higher taxa (ie. new
design); 3. the origin of man; etc, are still open, despite the
regular Microsoft-style "vapourware" pronouncents that a solution is
due real soon now. For example, on the origin of life, the gap is
still there after the best part of a century of trying:
"It's the importance of the research," Bada suggests, "Today, as we
leave the twentieth century, we still face the biggest unsolved
problem that we had when we entered the twentieth century: how did
life originate on Earth? There's big rewards for figuring that out."
(Radetsky P., "Life's Crucible", Earth, Vol. 7, No. 1, February
1998, p40)
Thirdly, when would it ever not be "theological premature and
apologetically unwise to" assume that God has intervened at strategic
points in cosmological and biological history, as He has done in
human history? If theists are going to be forever afraid of
postulating that God may have intervened in cosmological and
biological history, in case they might be proved wrong then, if He
really has they will never know it:
"On similar grounds Ratzsch rejects the argument, frequently made by
theistic evolutionists, that to posit action by a creator anywhere in
the history of life is to invoke a futile "god of the gaps," who will
inevitably be expelled from reality as science advances to fill the
gaps with naturalistic explanations. Ratzsch sensibly retorts that
"If there are no gaps in the fabric of natural explanation, then
obviously appeal to divine activity will get us off track. On the
other hand, if there are such gaps, refusing in principle to
recognize them will equally get us off the track." (Johnson P.E.,
"Starting a Conversation about Evolution", A review of "The Battle of
the Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution
Debate" by Del Ratzsch.
http://www.mrccos.com/arn/johnson/ratzsch.htm))
The God-of-the-gaps argument is really based on the implicit
assumption that naturalism is more likely to be true and theism
more likely to be false:
"Theistic evolutionists' standard use of the phrase "God of the gaps"
to discourage consideration of nonnaturalistic possibilities, for
example, comes straight out of their implicit MN...The problem, very
briefly stated, is this: if employing MN is the only way to reach true
conclusions about the history of the universe, and if the attempt to
provide a naturalistic history of the universe has continually gone
from success to success, and if even theists concede that trying to do
science on theistic premises always leads nowhere or into error (the
embarrassing "God of the gaps"), then the likely explanation for this
state of affairs is that naturalism is true and theism is false."
(Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance", 1995, p211)
If that's the case, why be a theist?
SJ>{3} "... a fully naturalistic process."
LH>This phrase is a real problem.
>
>I've written many times that I believe that God designed and called the
>universe into being, continually sustains and providentially governs
>it. Moreover, because the natural processes which God created and
>sustains are so fruitful and exquisitely sensitive, God's providential
>governance can have profoundly important effects.
Agreed. That "natural processes...can have profoundly important
effects". But the real question is whether they can transform a
molecule into a molecular biologist without any additional special
guidance or intervention by God.
LH>God can also miraculously intervene at any time. Even if we can model
>something using natural mechanisms, that does not rule out the possibility
>that God miraculously intervened at some time during the process.
Agreed. The real question is: has He? Or to put it another way, are
"natural mechanism" sufficient to turn hydrogen into humans, without
any additional special guidance or intervention by God?
LH>(However, in absence of other considerations, if we can construct such a
>model, then we have some reason to believe that God probably did use natural
>mechanisms --- especially in view of how often the Bible praises God
>for his providential care and control over nature.)
Here you admit that you *don't* have "such a model", which is not the
understanding that I had from your previous posts, to the effect that: "We
have good empirical models for how stars form and evolve by natural
processes. We have good empirical models for how the earth formed and
developed oceans and an atmosphere by natural processes. We have good
empirical models for how the heavy elements necessary for life formed by
natural processes." There was no qualifying statement that in the case of
cosmological models, "Seeds have to be inserted by hand into the computer
simulations of the formation of structure" (Kolb R., "Planting Primordial
Seeds", Astronomy, February 1998, Vol. 26, No. 2, p42)
LH>I don't think the phrase "... a fully naturalistic process" does
>justice to all that. More importantly, it easily gives the wrong
>impression to anyone who has not read what I actually wrote, but only
>read the "summary" with my name attached.
On the contrary, having read your clarification above, I stand by all
that I said. Behind all your words about "providential oversight over
the regular and continuous operation of natural mechanisms" and
"natural processes...under his providential governance", "providential
oversight over natural mechanisms", "providential evolution",
"providentially governs", "God's providential governance",
"providential care and control over nature", is just what science and
evryone else calls "fully naturalistic process".
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------