Nick Matzke posted Entry 2873 on February 1, 2007 06:18 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2863

In about 10 minutes (7:30 pm Eastern), Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, is going to give a lecture for the “Fundamentally Speaking” lecture series at SUNY-Cortland. This is for an advanced communications class, so naturally the lecture is streaming live at this link. The topic is “Conservative Christianity and Evolution” (description).

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Post a Comment

Use KwickXML formatting to markup your comments: <b>, <i>, <u> <s>, <quote author="...">, <url href="...">, etc. You may need to refresh before you will see your comment.




Remember personal info?

  


Comment #159132

Posted by Steviepinhead on February 1, 2007 6:54 PM (e)

Good call, thanks!

Comment #159170

Posted by Sir_Toejam on February 2, 2007 1:58 AM (e)

meh, no quicktime.

anyone who watched it that can give a quick synopsis, or expound on any interesting specifics?

Comment #159233

Posted by Chris Pelletier on February 2, 2007 11:24 AM (e)

I have quicktime, but still no video. Let’s hope it makes it to youtube.

Comment #159236

Posted by Gary Hurd on February 2, 2007 12:15 PM (e)

The video seems to be DOA.

Comment #159243

Posted by infamous on February 2, 2007 1:32 PM (e)

OT, but everyone’s favorite DaveScot is looking quite foolish over at UD and I think some of the posters there have done quite a good job of exposing his deception…
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/2014#com…

Comment #159254

Posted by PhilVaz on February 2, 2007 2:12 PM (e)

http://web.cortland.edu/communication/fundamenta…

I watched it, just had to be patient for it to connect through Quicktime 7. I missed the first couple of minutes. The actual link was above, you had to click “videos” from the link Nick provided. The talk was on science and religion, some statistics of believing scientists, definitions of evolution, and the “creation/evolution continuum” listed here

http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/15…

As a theistic evolutionist I appreciate how she critiques folks like Dawkins (“nothing but blind pitiless indifference” quote) and Shermer (quote about “standard scientific view” is “God had nothing to do with it”) who confuse philosophy with science.

Phil P

Comment #159258

Posted by GuyeFaux on February 2, 2007 2:39 PM (e)

In case people were wondering what DaveScot was on:

I drink a 28 ounce pot or two of green tea every day plus take this vitamin supplement.

He links to this.

Comment #159263

Posted by Peter on February 2, 2007 3:45 PM (e)

My mom’s alma mater. She earned a degree in chemistry. I’ll have to let her know that their doing their part.

Comment #159281

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on February 2, 2007 5:50 PM (e)

As a theistic evolutionist I appreciate how she critiques folks like Dawkins (“nothing but blind pitiless indifference” quote) and Shermer (quote about “standard scientific view” is “God had nothing to do with it”) who confuse philosophy with science.

Hilarious! What exactly in evolution theory says that it is “nothing but blind pitiless indifference” and how isn’t the “standard scientific view” that found natural mechanisms describes evolution well and “God had nothing to do with it”?

If you inject religion into science by critiquing its implications in this way, it is you who confuse philosophy with science. Which is exactly what theistic evolution does, btw.

Comment #159283

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on February 2, 2007 5:54 PM (e)

“What exactly in evolution theory says that it is “nothing but blind pitiless indifference”” - What exactly in evolution theory says that it is not “nothing but blind pitiless indifference”, of course.

Comment #159305

Posted by PhilVaz on February 2, 2007 9:09 PM (e)

Torb: “If you inject religion into science by critiquing its implications in this way, it is you who confuse philosophy with science. Which is exactly what theistic evolution does, btw.”

I can critique those implications since they are philosophical implications, not scientific. I freely admit theistic evolution is not a scientific view. It is a philosophical position that combines both God and science. But so is the view that evolution means “there is no God.” That too is a philosophical position not a scientific view according to Eugenie Scott, which was one of the points of her talk. She is right, Dawkins is wrong. We’ll find that out even more in Alister McGrath’s The Dawkins Delusion which was just published by SPCK.

Phil P

Comment #162910

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on February 26, 2007 9:55 AM (e)

PhilVaz:

Sorry for a late response. FTIW:

I can critique those implications since they are philosophical implications, not scientific.

You don’t motivate why the first implication is philosophical. In fact, evolution theory implies that it comes down to contingency and stochasticity due to coarse graining. Both of these constraints have natural models in deterministic and probabilistic laws. If you try to inject god-in-the-gap mechanisms here, it is another theory that isn’t minimal. But we know that the minimal theory is enough.

But so is the view that evolution means “there is no God.”

That wasn’t the second implication. The second implication follows from the first above.

You are possibly discussing Dawkins argument that gods are improbable. That is another claim.