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?

[Cathar1950]

Are you really unaware of the fields of psychology, psychiatry, neuroscience, behavioral and social sciences?

I am familiar with them. I was just thinking of things that science doesn't understand yet. They have made remarkable advances and I suspect they will make more but as of yet we are not even sure if some mind/brain activity is local. I am a non-dualist. I suppose I am able to see this way by extending matter beyond the pure mechanical to include that which is felt and perceived .

Wouldn't it have been simpler to have just pointed out an example of something that we have reason to think is real and yet remains unknown and outside of science?

I actually agree with you and can not think of anything beyond science or rather experience.

[QED]

Consciousness? Self awareness? I am just guessing.

I wish more people would join in with the topic titled Is it possible to build a sapient machine?. I think this issue about consciousness is keeping people separated by a false divide.

[juliod]

I was just thinking of things that science doesn't understand yet.

Right, but that wasn't the question. Claims are made about things that are "outside" science, or "beyond" science, or things that science cannot study. No such things can be seen to exist.

DanZ

[Cathar1950]

Science is limited to things that exist.
There is even the science of religion I believe.
There is metaphysics but they draw upon science and philosophy.
History can be seem as both science and humanities.
Psychology is both Philosophy and science.
It is hard to think of nothing, if not impossible.
My problem with dualism is that the separation of science and religion creates a larger divide. I prefer a naturalism or organic view of the universe. Religion seems to be a way of life as opposed to knowledge.
It is ever changing like language. Science is more ordered and in theory self correcting while religion/spirituality is a practice within a community.
Except for some mystics which maybe more of a love affair.
When people devote there lives to a book such as the bible it often becomes the object I think this would be what Whitehead would call Misplaced concrescence. The real would be the feelings and thoughts behind the writings in their context. They tend to take on meanings not intended but yet every bit as related to the believers perceptions and meaning. I don't remember my point. But I think we are agreeing.
Thanks for the thread QED it looks interesting. I will read it after I take a nap.

[Rob]

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.

Wouldn't it have been simpler to have just pointed out an example of something that we have reason to think is real and yet remains unknown and outside of science?

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

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.

[K]nowledge of history helps us appreciate that out current knowledge and convictions are only a moment on a continuum of change. This realization can make us more open to new ideas and less dogmatically certain about what we believe to be true and unchallengeable. Jonathan Cohen, a neuroscientist at Princeton, was recently asked by a reporter why he would want to participate in a symposium on Buddhism and the biology of attention. He replied that: (Valenstein 2005: 182)

Neuroscientists want to preserve both the substance and the image of rigor in their approach, so one doesn’t want to be seen as whisking out into the la-la land of studying consciousness. On the other hand, my personal belief is that the history of science has humbled us about the hubris of thinking we know everything. (Cited in the New York Times, September 14, 2003, sec, 6, p. 46.)

-- Valenstein, Elliot S. (2005) The War of the Soups and the Sparks: The Discovery of Neurotransmitters and the Dispute Over How Nerves Communicate. New York: Columbia University Press.

Hint: What is this? And what is its singlular origin?

[Cathar1950]

The limits of science hardly seem to be beyond science.
Even the universe and it's beginning is within the realm of scientific investigation.
All knowledge has experience as it's foundation. This includes reveled knowledge. Any experience is a possible subject of science.
Anything knowable is within the realm of science. This would include fields of psychology, psychiatry, neuroscience, behavioral and social sciences and philosophy and metaphysics. Show me something that is truly unknowable and I would like to know how it is you can speak of it in a meaningful manner.

There is no end to science, but there are limits of and to science.

If there is no end then how is it limited?

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.

What would be the point of new hypotheses if not to verify it's consequences. Metaphysics, philosophy and religion are all subject to the primacy of experience.
As Whitehead would say we understand less then we know and we know less then what we experience and we experience less then there is. Or something like that.

[Arrow]

Poetry is real. Science doesn't get you very far in its understanding. It's the wrong tool.

(I can't help but also observe that the major universities of the world divide their institutions into two major divisions, Arts & Sciences. There might be some basis for this distinction.)

Peace,
Arrow

[Cathar1950]

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.

[Arrow]

Howdy, Cathar1950.

Before I even began this reply I realized we had a problem in that "science" can be defined and used in many different modes.

I had in mind the type of science that quanitifies and makes reliable predictions. Classic scientific method. In this context, I'm still pretty confident in my original statement, that when comes to appreciating poetry (and the arts in general), scientific method is the wrong tool for the job.

Now we could broaden the definition of science to where it includes any perception and cognition, i.e., experience. This seems to be your position. Correct me if I'm wrong If this is the case, of course I must agree with you. If anything is science, then any mode of understanding must be science. It's hard to argue with that logic.

Unless I don't accept such a broad definition of science. Which I don't, at least not without a really strong chaser. Oops! We've done it again. We've gone off debating without defining our terms.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughtful and moderate posts.

Peace,
Arrow

[juliod]

Show me something that is truly unknowable and I would like to know how it is you can speak of it in a meaningful manner.

Hear hear. If something is really "unknowable" then it doesn't even achieve the lofty position of "false".

Note also, that the Big Bang Theory did not originate from an episode of philosophical introspection, but as a consequence of data. The red shift of galaxies suggested an expanding universe. The currently favored theory to explian this is that the origin was an explosion-like event.

DanZ