Hovind/Callahan Debate

[johndcal]

The Hovind/Callahan debate page at Faith & Reason Ministries has been updated with expanded commentary, more pictures, and a video clip. The debate page is the ministries' most popular.

So if you missed the original publication or wish to see the most recent version, don't miss the action: young Earth creationism (YEC) vs. theistic evolution. Included are the entire Dec-5-04 debate (mp3) and excerpts (mp3), a video clip (mov, wmv, mpg), photos, commentary and links (including links to Callahan's letter to Hovind and Hovind's radio response, Aug-26-04, mp3).

See the Hovind/Callahan debate link at Faith & Reason Ministries, http://www.faithreason.org/



Does YEC or TE best model our observations of the physical and spiritual universe?

[juliod]

I did. I cannot help it if you choose to ignore it:

I didn't ignore anything. Your quotes and picture don't contain any such examples.

DanZ

[juliod]

True Arrow but even poetry is subject to experience.
It can be studied as a science and with the methods of science.
Insights would fall along the same lines. There is a fine line between science and art. Both are related to experience.

Yes. And at the very least, science can study poetry in terms of it's effect on people. Hook electrodes up to someone and read some really bad poetry at them. They've done this sort of thing with pornography at least.

Anyway, the language arts may seem to be different from science, and to a degree they are. But active scholars in those fields often use techniques that are identical to advanced science. For example, scholars are always presented with the question of authenticity. If you have a corpus of works attributed to an author you can use sophisticated computer analysis of word usage and language to decide of one or more works is out of place. Also, the field of paracryptanalysis can do such wonders as decipher poetry in some unknown language.


DanZ

[juliod]

Now we could broaden the definition of science to where it includes any perception and cognition, i.e., experience.

It's a point I've been wanting to make is that this isn't about science in isolation. What I've said about science applies to any serious form of scholarship. For "experience" substitute "evidence". Historians (real historians, the ones who do actual research in archives, etc) are not strictly scientists, but follow a similar process of evidence-theory-support.

DanZ

[Rob]

I did. I cannot help it if you choose to ignore it:

I didn't ignore anything. Your quotes and picture don't contain any such examples.

l. Neel: "As a physicist, I consider physics to be an experimental science. A hypothesis is of interest only if it is possible to verify its consequences by discovering new phenomena or new directions. This means that all hypotheses concerning the origin of the universe do not belong to physics but to metaphysics or to philosophy and that physicists as such are not qualified to deal with them.

-- Christopharou, L. G. (2001) Place of Science in a World of Values and Facts. New York: Kluwer Academic. p. 272.

Obviously you think that the statement by the physicist above is wrong since you don't feel it is true that the "all hypotheses concerning the origin of the universe do not belong to physics but to metaphysics or to philosophy."

Your naive assumption is based upon an incomplete understanding of exactly what we do and do not know about the origin of the universe, and what evidence our knowlege is based upon.

First, our knowlege about the origin of the universe (the Big Bang) is based upon our observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation:

The cosmic microwave background takes us back to very near the first instants of the universe. But this is not close enough for physicists, who have been able to elucidate some of the mysterious concepts that shroud the very beginning of time.

-- Silk, Joseph (2005) On the Shores of the Unknown: A Short History of the Universe. Cambridge. p. 59.

There is a very good reason why Silk says this is not "close enough," because he continues,

The universe began at time zero [which we can know nothing about except it was] in a state of infinite density. At least the existence of such a singular state is the expectation from extrapolating the present universe back in time. Of course the phrase 'a state of infinite density' is completely unacceptable as a physical description of the universe, infinities being abhorrent to physicists.

(....) A singularity is even worse than an infinity in our equations. It signals a breakdown in the laws of physics. The resolution of the paradox simply is that our theory of gravitation has broken down before reaching this extreme state.... Nevertheless, to the extent that one accepts Einstein's theory of gravity, singularities, the breakdown of space and time, and of the laws of physics, are predicted to exist in nature.... Theory suggests that at least one singularity must exist somewhere in the universe. This is the consequence of a powerful theorem proven by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose. The existence of an early dense phase of the universe that is required to account for the cosmic blackbody radiation inevitably leads to the prediction of a much earlier and denser phase that itself may have a singular origin. One must hope that a more complete theory of gravity will come to the rescue and help evade this prediction of a monster lurking somewhere in the sky.

-- Silk, Joseph (2005) On the Shores of the Unknown: A Short History of the Universe. Cambridge. pp. 59-61.

Why, one might ask does Silk refer to this state of physics when confronted with a singularity, which he calls the "lurking monster," as one in which we "must hope" (sounds more like religious language than scientific fact) for a "more complete theory of gravity"? He makes this clear with the following statement:

The existence of a naked singularity would be bad news for physics, but could provide solace for the religiously inclined. [Not really, but it sounds nice.] Miracles could happen. With no apparent warning, vast outpourings of energy could appear, violating one of our most cherished beliefs, the law of conservation of mass and energy. Past and future become hopelessly entangled near a singularity, negating the ideas of causality on which physics is based.

-- Silk, Joseph (2005) On the Shores of the Unknown: A Short History of the Universe. Cambridge. pp. 60.

It makes a nice pseudoscientific myth based upon a false pseudo-certainty (a form of scientism) to naively believe that we "know" the origin of the universe, but in truth physics only takes us back to "very near the first few instants of the universe," which is already past the point of origin in the "naked singularity" which is a "consequence of a powerful theorem" of the very physics we attempt to use to answer the question what is the origin of the universe; hence the paradox Silk refers to above. The truth is, we don't know; we only know that the first few instants after the singularity that energy and matter evolved into the present universe we know. That is the limit of what science can really tell us.

So, in fact and truth, we can only speculate about the origin of the universe, as our current physics tells us only of the origin of matter after the initial singularity, and which in our current state of physics is one of those "hypotheses concerning the origin of the universe do not belong to physics but to metaphysics or to philosophy and that physicists as such are not qualified to deal with them."

In other words, it is naive and uninformed to think that there is no question that science cannot answer, or that only those questions that can be asked and answered by science are important.

There are many more examples just like this that point out the limits of science, but of course, when one is in a state of pseudo-certainty, the facts will of certainty not confuse them from such a state of certain bliss.

I have a book that all those in such a blissful state of pseudo-certainty should read. Its called The Encyclopaedia of Ignorance: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Unknown. It is a vast survey, by the world's most eminent scientists, which surveys the far vaster terrain of what we don't know.

Like I say, the higher they reach in their respective fields the more insightful their comments become, and inversely the less trite, trivial, and pseudo-certain. Such true understanding usually brings about a certain humility that leads them to honestly say, "we don't know" when confronted with naked singularities and other such paradoxes.

Once, when Bohr was accused of confusing people with his convoluted sentences, he replied that one should not speak more clearly than one can think.... I am usually reluctant to engage in discussions about the meaning of quantum theory, because I find that the experts in this area have a tendency to speak with dogmatic certainty, each of them convinced that one particular solution to the problem has a unique claim to be the final truth. I have the impression that they are less wise than Bohr. They tend to speak more clearly than they think [were have we seen that before?].... As a physicist I am much more impressed by our ignorance than by our knowledge.

-- Freeman J. Dyson, Science and Ultimate Reality: Quantum Theory, Cosmology and Complexity. Cambridge. p. 88.

The front cover image depicts our Universe. Our entire observable Universe is inside this spherical wall of opaque glowing hydrogen plasma, from which light know as the cosmic microwave background radiation has traveled for 13.3 billion years to reach us.

[Cathar1950]

So, in fact and truth, we can only speculate about the origin of the universe, as our current physics tells us only of the origin of matter after the initial singularity, and which in our current state of physics is one of those "hypotheses concerning the origin of the universe do not belong to physics but to metaphysics or to philosophy and that physicists as such are not qualified to deal with them."

Metaphysics and Philosophy also have their limits and refer to science.
It is possible that some day we will have a physics that is multidimensional that explains the singularity. Being unknown does not mean that it will always be unknown.
I have the book too,
The Encyclopedia of Ignorance: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Unknown.
What is unknown today could be common knowledge tomorrow.
My book is an old version it would be interesting to read it again these many years later and see what we have found out since it was written.
Arrow I think you understand what I was saying.

[QED]

It makes a nice pseudoscientific myth based upon a false pseudo-certainty (a form of scientism) to naively believe that we "know" the origin of the universe, but in truth physics only takes us back to "very near the first few instants of the universe," which is already past the point of origin in the "naked singularity" which is a "consequence of a powerful theorem" of the very physics we attempt to use to answer the question what is the origin of the universe; hence the paradox Silk refers to above. The truth is, we don't know; we only know that the first few instants after the singularity that energy and matter evolved into the present universe we know. That is the limit of what science can really tell us.

No necessarily. There are in principle many ways of looking beyond the sort of horizon that you speak of. Just as the cause of an unseen and survivor-less air-crash may be deduced in detail from it's wreckage, so can observed properties of the universe provide clues about its origin. There is currently a crisis in cosmology (a healthy sign that there are still bits of evidence that people are putting together) and certain features of the background radiation are leading some cosmologists away from the standard model.

Granted hubris is to be avoided, but not at the cost of rolling-up all the research prematurely. There are currently a good number of cosmologists (like Lee Smolin) who have been able to present hypothetical frameworks from within which universes like our can emerge. His hypothesis would be useless speculation (a form of religion) were it not for the fact that it presents concrete and testable predictions. This is the key issue -- if a theory is sufficiently compatible with observations faith can be transformed into justifiable confidence.

[Rob]

There are in principle many ways of looking beyond the sort of horizon that you speak of.

Science is a human enterprise; hence it includes speculation, conjecture, and yes, even hope and faith, but these only inspire or perhaps lead (some would say astray at times) all of which aid in "looking beyond the ... horizon."

The only tool we have for "looking beyond the horizon" of a singularity is the language of mathematics (and it cannot do this in our current state of knowledge; it only says "it is there!"); we confirm our mathematical models (which are constructs in our minds) by experimentation; measuring the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) and seeing if it has the properties mathematical theories predict it should have; i.e., perturbations, for current theory holds galaxies and such evolve from little blips in the uniformity of the CMBR at the earliest moments AFTER the singularity.

So, you beg the question in that the very tool for "looking beyond," our current understanding of physics, which is founded upon the language of mathematics, breaks down and its laws as we know them don't apply. And it is resorting to quasi-religious language to say we "hope" we will find an new physics. We well may, but then, we may not either, or once we make breakthroughs, other paradoxes equally baffling and beyond our mathematics may arise. The truth is we don't know, and that was the question at hand: are there things that lie beyond the reach of science.

Just as the cause of an unseen and survivor-less air-crash may be deduced in detail from it's wreckage ...

Begging the question and refuted above; we don't have any tools or means of looking beyond the singularity. We approach it, come "close" to it, but the laws of physics as we know them break down, hence leaving essentially deaf, dumb, and blind beyond that point. It seems hard for some to simply say, at this point, we don't know

There is currently a crisis in cosmology (a healthy sign that there are still bits of evidence that people are putting together) and certain features of the background radiation are leading some cosmologists away from the standard model.

Human knowledge is limited; that is not to say it will not continue to grow and expand; but each new level will have its own limitations if history is any indicator of the future, as this has always been the concomitant of new breakthroughs. The Standard Model is still the only model based upon empirically verifiable observations, so unless you are now going to argue that speculation replaces or is equal to the use of the term "theory" in science, which would be conflating the two very different terms and their meanings, you are mistaken to say that "cosmologists" have somehow abandoned the standard model. It is one thing to use a theories points of failure or weakness to explore other possible solutions, and another to say the scientific community has "abandoned" or does not recognize the fact at this point it is the only theory that accords with both our theoretical physics and observations. Silk (as late as 2005) makes this very, very, clear.

Granted hubris is to be avoided, but not at the cost of rolling-up all the research prematurely.

Straw Man; at no point does the statement of the fact that there are limitations to science, questions which are beyond its means to answer, imply it should start "rolling-up all ... research prematurely." Could you provide a quote QED where I (or anyone else in this thread) make that argument? I know I didn't.

There are currently a good number of cosmologists (like Lee Smolin) who have been able to present hypothetical frameworks from within which universes like our can emerge. His hypothesis would be useless speculation (a form of religion) were it not for the fact that it presents concrete and testable predictions. This is the key issue -- if a theory is sufficiently compatible with observations faith can be transformed into justifiable confidence.

Could you provide me with some citations I can follow up on. This would be interesting.

You say, "faith can be transformed into justifiable confidence." I agree with this, as fundamentally science is based upon faith and hope too; the faith that the universe is knowable, and the hope that if we apply ourselves we can discover its secrets. And experience has validated this faith and hope, which is ultimately a human experience of discovery of facts and meanings.

And it is the belief, based upon quasi-religious "faith" that there are no questions that science cannot answer, that is called scientisim, and which leads some to make philosophical claims in the name of science that are unsupported by science itself.

[QED]

Rob, we're getting way off topic here, but it's quite interesting so I've started up a new topic for us to thrash this out some more. Hope you'll be able to find the time to drop in and take a look:
Universal Evolution - Can science see over the event horizon?

[juliod]

Good point, QED. Here's the original question:

Does YEC or TE best model our observations of the physical and spiritual universe?

My answer is that they do equally poorly at explaining the physical universe, and that the "spiritual" universe (whatever that might be) doesn't exist.

(BTW, the original post was obviosuly just an ad for their web page. But that doesn't mean we can't discuss the issue. Typical theist deceit.)

DanZ

[Rob]

The original question of this thread was:

Does YEC or TE best model our observations of the physical and spiritual universe?

First, this is a "debate" forum, and it seems that the "debatable" difference between Young Earth Creationism and Theistic Evolution (TE) are legitimate topics of debate; after all, there are significant differences in how these two approach both theology and science.

Now, I note that when I stumbled on this thread Juliod was asking the following:

Can you name anything that is actually "real" about which science does not know?

No, there isn't any such thing. The things that science "can't" study is exactly that group of things we have good reason to believe are fakes and frauds.

First, it is clear Juliod is off topic, but then, one can look at any thread in this forum and see the same thing happening. Hence, we remind each other to get back on topic now and then Of course, I answered his question and pointed out a fact that shows the limits of our current science, and I did not even resort to philosophy or religion to do so. The point being, there are practical limits to science at any one point in time.

Now, more importanly, Juliod says,

Good point, QED. Here's the original question:

Does YEC or TE best model our observations of the physical and spiritual universe?

My answer is that they do equally poorly at explaining the physical universe, and that the "spiritual" universe (whatever that might be) doesn't exist.

By its very definition, if there was such a thing as "spiritual" reality, it would transcend the limits of science, but alas, pseudo-certaintly provides such absolute comfort, no less comforting a dogma than that used by those Creationists who give expression to similar dogmatic statements unsupported by either science, philosophy, or religion.

(BTW, the original post was obviosuly just an ad for their web page. But that doesn't mean we can't discuss the issue. Typical theist deceit.)

Here, Juliod engages in an ad hominem stereotype asserting that all "theists" are deceitful, saying "typical theist deceit." Does Juliod know the views of all theists? Apparently Juliod is so uninformed, that he fails to realize that many theists have played a pivotal role in defeating YEC attempts to introduce Creationism into our educational system. But off course, for those who opperate in gross stereotypes, such honest differences mean little, and allow them to apply labels and paint an entire group with such a broad brush.

And that brush is called Ad Hominem. How inconsistent of Juliod to claim to be morally or ethically superior in his use of ad hominem and gross and prejudiced stereotypes of an entire group who hold such a wide range of diverse views on this topic, many being practicing scientists (and I am not referring to Creationists who hold degrees or ID propagandists who hold degrees, but practicing physicists, etc., who are pioneers and Nobel Prize winners in their fields)

Is it any wonder serious individuals on both sides of the issue see this and leave this site for what it is if it allows this to pass as intelligent debate.