Genie Scott lecture streaming

| 12 Comments

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).

12 Comments

Good call, thanks!

meh, no quicktime.

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

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

The video seems to be DOA.

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/arch[…]014#comments

http://web.cortland.edu/communicati[…]/com342.html

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/resource[…]2_7_2000.asp

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

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.

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

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.

“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.

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

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.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on February 1, 2007 6:18 PM.

The Dover Books Cometh was the previous entry in this blog.

Harun Yahya Spams the French is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter