Steve wrote:
> "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!
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.
{1} "... there are computer models which demonstrate cosmological
evolution as a fully naturalistic process..."
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 might also recall that I said, on several occasions, that we don't
yet have detailed empirical models of galactic formation. (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.
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").
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."
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."
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...."
{2} "... therefore there was no reason to doubt that the origin and/or
development of life on Earth was not also..."
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.
-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.
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.)
-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. 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.
{3} "... a fully naturalistic process."
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. 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. (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.)
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.
Loren Haarsma