Education Series: Lesson 01
Here is the first installment on the new video series. I’m still playing around with the technical aspects of flash video, so I need feedback on how well the video runs, and if the data transfer can keep up. The goal is to have the best possible quality and still be able to stream through the average connection speed. The frame rate seems choppy to me, which could be the effect of this new flash video conversion utility (that I have yet to register). The original version is DVD quality in widescreen format.
I would also like to get some useful content feedback. Unless there is something really distracting in the video narration, I probably will not shoot that again. But changes to the graphics and titles are relatively painless.
Check back in a couple of days for the next one.
June 18th, 2008 at 7:14 am
Looked good to me. It loaded very slightly slower than it was playing on my connection. However, I’m not at my house so I don’t know if this connection is fast or slow.
Manages to be very informative and frankly presents mind boggling info for someone who’s never thought through it before without seeming threatening.
One question: Can you give me a citation or something on the heart-mind thing? I had never really heard that before.
June 18th, 2008 at 7:54 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_brain#Early_views
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/heart.htm
http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/News/News-archive/Browse-by-date/2004/Features/WTX023667.htm
It’s very natural to filter the Scripture though contemporary scientific paradigms. You can see St. Augustine wrestling over whether or not the sky was a dome or a vault, whether it encircled the entire earth or just the top part. You can also see early church fathers using biblical references to “earth” and “sea” and “wind” and “fire” to argue over the relative weight of the elements (earth, wind, fire, water).
So naturally, if the pre-4th century scientific consensus claims the heart is the seat of conciousness, all scriptures refering to the heart would have been understood in that context — whether or not the authors intended it. How would anybody know otherwise?
There was obviously much more written about the geocentric controversy. So its hard to find a lot on the heart-brain thing.
June 18th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Gordon, excellent video! I eagerly look forward to the next installment.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Me likey.
You seem more comfortable in front of the camera than in the earlier vids (which I enjoyed thoroughly nonetheless, by the way).
June 18th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
You say,
“Is there an institutional atheistic bias in the natural sciences? Sure.”
I have a problem with that. There is in any natural science a bias toward explanations in terms of naturalistic variables that are accessible to observation, intersubjectively reliable (i.e., not dependent on idiosyncratic subjective beliefs), and so on. That is, methodological naturalism. But an “institutional atheistic bias”? I’d sure like to see some support for that claim. Note that showing that some large proportion of natural scientists are not theists does not constitute evidence for the claim that there is an institutional atheistic bias.
June 18th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
He doesn’t say that. He says often evangelicals are on the outside looking in when it comes to science, and that it’s tempting to attribute this to an institutional atheistic bias, but in fact most evangelicals are just ill equipped to address science on its own terms.
Is that about right, Gordon?
June 18th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Looking forward to the rest of them, Gordon. Good job! I have a great conversion utility if you want me to give it a try.
Re: RBH’s concerns, I must admit that I raised my eyebrows on this one. I presume you did not mean to imply a methodological, conspiratorial bias, but personal bias on the part of the majority of academia as an institution. This would be another way of saying “some large proportion of natural scientists are not theists”.
June 18th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
I will chime in and say that “institutional atheistic bias” seemed somewhat harsh, as if scientists (and science itself) were actively (and collectively) trying to deny the existence of God (and that this is inherent in the natural sciences). I find it odd that you said this, because from your other posts and your book I do not get that impression at all.
The video seemed to stream well, and I enjoyed it. A good start to the series.
June 18th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
It’s more common than not that Christian freshman feel like Christianity (if not theism in general) has been attacked by the professors of any and every academic discipline. Although certainly hard to quantify per RBH’s request, I do believe that there is a large segment of academia which is not only personally atheistic but also effectively recruiting students by force of personality and perceived intellectual authority with off-handed comments, a quick joke at God’s expense, etc., even while maintaining objectivity in the actual coursework itself. I myself, at one of the South’s most prestigious public universities, have felt like a couple professors’ snide remarks amounted to personal confessions of disbelief in Christianity. Is this avoidable? Perhaps not. It is “institutional bias”? Not exactly, but it’s every bit as influential.
June 18th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Ahh, I was waiting for this. You can understand why I said this on two different levels.
1.) This video series is intended to be a resource for those (conservative Christians) who need to completely re-think how they approach science/faith issues. We all spend enough time preaching to the choir and patting each other on our backs in our own blogs.
In my experience with speaking to hostile audiences on these issues, there is a large element in the evangelical community that absolutely will not listen to anybody who they think is a tool for what they percieve as the anti-Christian establishment — whatever that means. Unfortunately, the movie Expelled only made this perceptions worse.
When trying to convince others of a difficult viewpoint, it often helps to conceed a relatively immaterial point to make a greater point. Whether there is or isn’t an atheistic bias in the natural science is not really the concern here. Even if we grant that such perceptions are legitamate, that doesn’t excuse us for crippling our children by teaching them demonstrably false ideas about the material world. This will only exacerbate the problem by ensuring that Christians are excluded (by virture of not being qualified) from participating in the conversation. That is the larger point being made.
2.) On another level, I argue in lesson 3 that science only works when one approaches the data as an athiest would. Extra-rational or super-natural interpretations and explanations, even if true, are incapable of adding anything non-trivial to our material understanding of the cosmos — so we intentionally exclude them for scientific purposes. Not because we reject them in principle (although many scientists do) but simply because they can’t create coherent disciplines that guide our material investagations into ordinary phenomena.
In lesson 2 I discuss the difference between scientific naturalism and philosphical materialism. No real difference in practice (ie: the laboratory or the field), but big difference in principle (ie: metaphysical commitments). The first step is being able to properly distinguish the two so that good naturalisic science (baby) doesn’t get thrown out with materialism (bathwater).
I really appreciate all of the feedback. I’m planning on posting Lesson 02 on Friday morning.
June 18th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
For anyone who wants to conduct a non-scientific experiment: forward a link of these videos to some of your Christian brothers/sisters who do not share your views on science and get their opinion. I’m going to do the same as soon as I get the first three posted. That is the real test.
June 18th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
AMW wrote
He doesn’t say that. He says often evangelicals are on the outside looking in when it comes to science, and that it’s tempting to attribute this to an institutional atheistic bias, but in fact most evangelicals are just ill equipped to address science on its own terms.
The sentences I quoted are actual quotations — I went back and listened repeatedly because I type slowly. I don’t use quotation marks lightly.
Gordon, I understand wanting to ‘connect’ with your audience, but doing so by propagating a falsehood and pandering to the mistaken prejudices of your audience is not a good way to accomplish that connection. Unless you can support the claim that there is an institutional atheistic bias, you are merely pandering to those prejudices, reinforcing them in a way that hurts your actual goal.
June 18th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Let me expand just a dab. I think it’s fair to say that the natural sciences have an institutional materialistic bias, or an institutional naturalistic bias. But “atheistic” means “doesn’t believe in a god.” Sure, one might argue that what you really mean is that “a-theism” merely means the absence of reference to a god, but that’s misusing “atheistic” in the same way that “theory” is misused when evolution is dismissed as “just a theory.”
But atheism not a bias of the natural sciences as an institution. Shoot, the natural sciences were founded in large part by believers and many believers are natural scientists — witness the ASA. Some scientists don’t believe in god, some do, but there’s no institutional position either way.
June 18th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
RBH,
Firstly, I disgaree with your assessment of my tactics. I’m not about to begin a 12-lesson video series that completely dismantles creation science by defending an institution that most Christians percieve as religiously challenged. I spend the entire rest of the series defending the methods and practices of the scientific community, but unless I connect with audience in the first few minutes, it’s all for nothing.
And secondly, I didn’t imply that there is or isn’t a legitamate bias. What I said is that it doesn’t matter. If I wanted to make the point that there was bias, I would have said, “There is a real anti-Christian bias in the natural sciences and here is how you deal with it…” But that is not what I said. I said:
“It’s tempting to attribute this to an institutionalized atheistic bias, but the fact is…”
“Is there an atheistic bias in the natural sciences? Sure…” — as in: sure, whatever — believe what you want, but it doesn’t change our responsibility to properly equip our children with the facts. So let’s move on…
You tell me after #12 just how much I “pandered” to prejudices and stereotypes.
Now I’m curious, does anybody feel as strongly about this as RBH?
June 18th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Gordon,
I think RBH wins this one. Can you edit that portion without re-shooting the entire narration? If you can, I would suggest you intent might be better carried by language more like this:
Is there an atheistic bias in the natural sciences? Many Christians are convinced this is the case, but even it it is true, this doesn’t change our responsibility to properly equip our children with the facts …
But I won’t complain if you leave it as it is. (I’m not sure you were looking for feedback on the actual content??) Overall, the content and the quality of your presentation are very good. I’m excited to see the whole series. More graphics might be nice. I presume you can add them in whenever you choose to.
My DSL speed is 1.5M, and the stream came in at double the play speed (it was completely downloaded by the time I had viewed about halfway). So I think that is very good, considering the size and quality of video.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:18 am
Ok, here is what I’m going to do. Keep giving me feedback — feedback is good. I’m going to keep a running “shot list” of potential do-overs throughout the running of the series. There will probably be other things like this — where the inteded point is not the percieved point.
Before I release the final versions (YouTube, GodTube, DVD, etc…). I’ll set my home-made studio back up and work through the shot list. So keep the comments coming and share with your friends.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:48 am
The sentences I quoted are actual quotations — I went back and listened repeatedly because I type slowly.
I stand corrected. The phrase comes up twice, and when I listened through a second time to double check your statement I only listened long enough to hear the phrase used the first time.
I agree that the second time the phrase is used should probably be edited out if possible. But, does anyone else here find it wicked ironic that the commenters on this post most likely agree that God accomodated the ignorance of his audience in the book of Genesis? No complaints there. But when Gordon makes an analogous accomodation, it’s remonstrance time.
June 19th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Good observation AMW. Conceeding a point does not mean you agree with or endorse the point. Did God agree that the sky is a solid dome holding back an ocean of water? No — but he repeated this falshood back to the Hebrews to make a greater point.
Conceeding a point just means that you are electing not to challeng it because there are bigger issues at stake that might get lost by arguing over immaterial issues. Whether the percieved bias is real or imgined doesn’t change our responsibilty to equip our children with science that works in practice, so I don’t mind conceeding an immaterial point about percieved institutional anti-Christian bias.
I just recently watched Carl Sagan’s Contact again — best movie of all time. When Ellie comes face-to-face with an extraterrestial who took the form of her diseased father, she asked something like, “Why do it this way? Why not give us more information? Show us your true form! Tell us all that you know!” To which the ET replies, using a line that her father used in the context of scanning for frequencies on a ham radio, “tiny steps Sprks, tiny steps…” (holding back tears now).
For those of us engrossed in the debate, who fully accept the scientific consensus on origins, have no ill-will towards the institutions of science and academia, are fully aware that creation science is bankrupt, and have made it through our YEC-induced faith crises fully intact, I can see how this statement can be irritating. But for those who are still on the other side?
“Tiny steps Sparks, tiny steps…”
June 19th, 2008 at 10:30 am
I wouldn’t say God is doing something as simple as accommodating ignorant people. He is just speaking in the language of their “science.” Using scientific language at all would have to called “accommodating ignorance” since science is always incomplete and changing.
It would make more sense to me to say Genesis is not really speaking on science but is just using ANE cosmology to make its own points. It’s not like God was telling them the earth was unmovable just so he could convince them of common descent later.
However, GJG is trying to demonstate that there isn’t bias that we should be afraid of while at the same time allowing that there is bias.
Overall though, I think it’s just a misunderstood point. I love the video!
June 19th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Excellent statement. I, too, prefer to couch it in those terms. On the other hand, every time God pulls back on the reigns and keeps from flooding finite man with infinite truth, it’s accommodation of our limitations, ignorance being the one in play here. So accommodation is there either way.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:13 am
I actually think the line in contact is “small moves…” not “tiny steps…”
June 19th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Lest I be misunderstood, the video as a whole looks very good to me, and I am looking forward to the rest. It’s a noble effort and I wish Gordon well with it.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
RBH,
If I didn’t respect your opinion as a regular contributor to the BTF blog, I wouldn’t have engaged your comments. If this series is going to be effective, I need to take all comments seriously. So I sincerely appreciate your chiming in.
GJG
June 19th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
I like that you are tackling this.
I too have a problem with your conceding (affirming) the statement, “Is there an institutional atheistic bias in the natural sciences? Sure.”
First, it seems to me to be a basic an integrity problem, an issue with respect to either a science or faith perspective. Institutions don’t take any such position. Some people in the sciences teaching community surely do, and some of them may even make it known. But in my experience, the majority educators don’t even have interest or time to posture on this subject.
Secondly, the affirmation of an institutional bias unfortunately actually adds fuel to the fire by lending your credibility to the proposition.
I would concur that much (most?) of the evangelical community might share the perspective as you voiced it, but that does not make it so.
The rephrasing suggested by Cliff Martin avoids these problems gracefully.
The video played just fine on my more software-cluttered machine, which stumbles constantly over YouTube videos.
I wish you well with this needed project. JimA
June 19th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Gordon,
Just chiming in that the video looked great. However, I was waiting for you to start working through those equations on the blackboard. Let’s see some mathematics discussion for a change!
June 19th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
JimA, welcome to the BTF blog. I’ll consider re-shooting that part of Lesson 1 before distributing the series.
Steve, that will be in the “special features” section of the DVD.
June 20th, 2008 at 9:11 am
In case anbody is still following this thread, how does this re-write sound:
“Is there an atheistic bias in the natural sciences? Certainly there are practicing scientists who oppose theism in general, and Christianity in particular, but what better way to address this than to faithfully equip our children for successful scientific careers? Unfortunately, very few of our private Christian High-School graduates are ready to enter this challenging mission field, despite averaging better than their public school counterparts on college entrance exams…”
I’ll wait until all 12 lessons are posted before setting up to re-shoot #1. Thoughts?
June 20th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Stephen Douglas: I’d say there’s a difference between accommodating and pandering, and that some accommodations are much better than others. The revised language is certainly better than the original, though I suppose I’d still have a minor quibble calling a university a “challenging mission field” in general, although for the audience of secluded Christian High School graduates, it will likely be challenging just as much because of that high school’s inattentiveness to what you’re saying about the natures of science and theology as it is b/c of the nature of the university. But of course you couldn’t say it that way.
On a related note, I’m not a big fan of the use of the word “liberal” to describe a student’s professors and roommates, at about 12 seconds from the end. The main point here, that they won’t get theologically sophistication, or even theology, from their professors and possibly their roommates, is true, at least in their science classes, precisely b/c they are science classes (I know people who got quite a bit of theological sophistication in philosophy and religion classes taught by atheists who had respect for people of faith). But I don’t think we need to flash the word “liberal” to yet again scare people into thinking the worst about universities.
Speaking of accommodating, would it be useful to, instead of inserting dogwhistles like “liberal” and “atheistic bias,” to emphasize your belief in some of the evangelical basics (e.g., Christ is fully God and fully man, he died and was resurrected, authority of the Bible). It may be tricky to get this in, especially if you want to avoid debates alive in evangelical circles (like inerrancy (whether to believe it, or even how to define it if you do believe it) and atonement theories (substitutionary vs. Christus Victor, etc.)). I say this especially because my father wouldn’t even open a book that had anything to do with evolution until I could prove the author’s evangelical status (so out goes the wonderfully written Finding Darwin’s God, b/c of course he wouldn’t trust a Catholic).
June 21st, 2008 at 6:48 am
Gordon,
I like the new wording you have suggested.
~ Cliff
June 21st, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Thanks cliff, and indecisive must be reading my mind. I already removed the “liberal” reference from the current script because it draws unecessary dividing lines. Heck, Brian McClaren endoresed my book and James McGrath’s blog is one my daily reads, and I’m not sure I still believe in a literal “soul” — I guess that makes me liberal?
More grist for the mill…
June 24th, 2008 at 1:17 am
Hi Gordon.
Just saw this for the first time today. Running Firefox and Flash under Linux and it looks good.
Upon hearing the “atheistic bias” quote, I cringed, and then was pleased to see that it was addressed in the comments. However, I don’t think the rewording is remarkably better. I think you are promoting an “us vs. them” scenario. Yes, I think evangelicals already see science and public institutions somewhat that way, but it seems like you are promoting fear tactics — Don’t let your kids grow up naive, don’t let them get pummeled when they go to college, etc. That message, I suppose, is fine, but the main thrust should be the beauty of EC.
To give you a revelation of my liberal bias, I was really frustrated in the 2004 election. It was obvious that Bush lead us into an unwarranted war that had no plan to end and the economy was smoldering, yadda, yadda. Six months after the election, Bush had a satisfaction level of 20-some percent. So why didn’t the Democrats win? Because they didn’t have a platform. It was not enough to say “Bush lied” or present any other truth of his administration. The platform was “Anybody but Bush” and that was not enough.
You have to go beyond telling the truth about evolution and show that EC is a platform.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Gordon, I like the new wording.
Tom, I think Gordon’s audience is already in an “us vs. them” mentality. He’s not introducing fuel for the fire, he’s addressing a concern.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Thanks for the comments Tom. Let’s revisit this after we get through the rest of the series. Remember also, that it’s important that I set the “hook” before tearing down the cottage industry of Christian folk-science. If I come right out with guns blazing, then I’ll lose the people who need to hear this the most and then all I’m doing is preaching to the choir.
It’s difficult to empathize/identify with your audience without perpetuating misconceptions or reinforcing stereotypes. Perhaps I didn’t strike the proper balance the first go-around. But let revisit this at the end.