Education Series: Lesson 02
As promised, here is the second installment. I noticed when I was doing the FLV conversion that there are unfortunately no graphics in Lesson 2. I think it’s the only one with just me talking, which I tried to minimize. However, Lesson 3 has plenty of eye-candy to keep the pace moving. If anybody has any thoughts on graphics that I could use to reinforce the monologue, I’m open to suggestions.
The fisrt video lesson was viewed 174 times during the first two days. This makes me question the 4,798 hits my website supposedly received during that same time. What were the other 4,624 people looking at?
Next one will go up Sunday.
June 20th, 2008 at 9:04 am
What were the other 4,624 people looking at?
Maybe they saw “Education Series: Lesson 02″ and that didn’t strike them as worth watching? Or perhaps they are traffic directed by links to specific posts you’ve done?
I’ll watch the vid at my lunch break and post any comments I have then.
June 20th, 2008 at 9:08 am
I don’t think that’s it. I didn’t post 02 until after the stats were compiled for Wed-Thurs. Looking forward to your comments though!
June 20th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Many are repeat hits of course. But I agree that there should be more than 150 views.
I don’t think the lack of graphics hurt too much. The text at the bottom of the screen keeps my interest.
June 20th, 2008 at 11:30 am
I don’t think the lack of graphics hurt too much. The text at the bottom of the screen keeps my interest.
Nonsense! It’s Gordon’s handsome visage that keeps your attention.
Alright, comments:
1. Pictures could be useful when you’re talking about meteorologists vs. shamans, doctors vs. faith healers, etc. (C’mon, you know you want to use this image!) They could also be useful when you talk about the wedding in Cana vs. a farmer in his field.
2. You say that while there is a huge difference between Naturalism and Materialism, there is little difference in practice. It would be good if you could make it clear that there is little difference in the practice of science. You’re a naturalist, and in practice in most areas there’s a big difference between you and a materialist.
3. In the car key example you say you may believe in miracles but you “reject them for the sake of finding your keys.” Ignore might be a better word than reject.
Great vid, overall. When these are all done will you be archiving them on your video page along with your three other series?
June 20th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Good comments AMW, except for that “handsome visage” nonsense! I’ve actually got some graphics for the opening examples.
After the final editing, I’ll be putting these up on my vids page in widscreen format (16:9) , as well as my usual posting on YouTube and GodTube in 4:3 format. A lot of people ask for DVDs of my other stuff, which I never really thought about (hence the poorer quality of production). So I will master a DVD of this series and then stick the image somewhere on my site where anybody can download and burn it. All for free of course, since this is a public service!
Also good comments in 2 and 3 — although I hate the thought of re-shooting the monologue. But if the goal is to have something that people want to share with friends and family, then I should go the extra mile and make it tight.
June 20th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
My big question is, who wrote all that stuff on the chalkboard?! Did you erase it, or do you have it available for whatever reshoots are necessary?
Good job so far. This is going to be great - provided I can get some of my loved ones who are skeptics to watch them!
June 20th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
I thought this one was good. I like the terms “scientific naturalism” and “philosophical materialism” because neither of the oppositions shares a term (which they could easily do if you labeled them differently).
I also wondered how teetotalers would take your final example on wine. Certainly Jesus making wine at Cana was a miraculous work of God (though of course I’ve heard the “it was actually grape juice” argument), but some teetotaler might say that the farmer fermenting his grapes to make wine isn’t God’s ordinary providential work but the work of Satan. I hope that this isn’t something that would trip anyone up who is watching this, but you’ve been warned.
June 20th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Stephen, ask me that question again after you see the backdrop I used for Lesson 3. Am I really outside?
Indecisive, I never thought about that. But I think those folks will never even lower the drawbridge to look outside the fortress, much less take a stroll on any slippery slope across the mote!
I actually made such a comparison in a previous post back in April.
http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/2008/04/06/news-update/
Welcome to the BTF blog!
June 20th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Interesting video, Gordon. Good job at explaining things. I like the examples of different kinds of science and pseudoscience. I wonder about the end, though. I do agree that we should not necessarily look to science to solve all of our questions, but to not look for answers to all of our questions in the created order is the tack that ID folks take. As Kenneth Miller said, don’t bet against science. You will lose. I also wonder about events that were considered in the past to be “special providence” that turned out to be “ordinary providence” once we understood them. I think the life of Christ was a peculiar point in time.
June 20th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Thanks for all your work in making this material available. You are great at making down to earth analogies! AMW beat me to the suggestion of using pictures for the initial comparisons - maybe in that section you could show a left half/right half with pictures of medical vs. witch doctor. (I would avoid using any pictures of well-known Christian faith healers, as this might turn off some Christian viewer who watches them. On that note, it seems a little off-putting if I shift your comparison to medical doctor vs. prayer; i.e. choosing medical doctors and rejecting prayer as the means of healing. Your point was good, that in terms of a scientific approach, medical doctors would be the preferred method. Prayer valid, but is outside science. Be careful of being too dismissive of non-naturalistic approaches, and clarify that non-naturalistic methods may be valid at times, they just aren’t science.)
You might also use a picture of Jesus turning water to wine, and a picture of a farmer or vineyard with grapes.
As far as the angel with keys, you might show a picture of an angel, then show a picture of keys hidden under a chair or someone finding them there.
June 21st, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Great job, Gordon.
I have a suggestion (I know you’re always looking for things to do with your extra time!) …
Why not remake your earlier videos, bringing them up to this quality. I think those earlier series have a broader appeal. Right now, I would recommend that my friends view your current Christian Education series (because of the quality of presentation) but for actual content, most of them would benefit more from the two earlier series, as they may not be involved in Christian schools.
June 21st, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Just a suggestion, Gordon:
Since re-shooting is a pain, why not make scripts of any videos you haven’t shot yet available online? That way, if anyone spots something that might raise mental red flags, they can be hashed out before you actually shoot the video.
Just a thought.
June 21st, 2008 at 8:45 pm
jimpithecus, I follow what you’re saying. Stay tuned… I’m building towards a point that ends with ID as both anti-science and anti-theology.
jtandy, thanks for the suggestions. And thanks also for the favorable review of BTF an Amazon and on the ASA listserve (I’m assuming that its you). I’m going to throw some pics in Lesson 2 when I do the final edit.
Cliff, already in the pipeline brother! I’ve got a great idea for a series that deals with Genesis much the way my “Does Science Contradict the Bible?” series does. But I promised my family that I would take a break after this one is done.
AMW, all 12 lessons are in the can (have been shot). And when I do reshoot, there will be very little re-editing involved since I just plop the new video track over the old one and tweak the timing of the graphis. So I’ll just keep rolling the vids out and keep a running list of things I’d like to change.
As I said in the beginning, I’m not looking to re-shoot anything unless it is just too distracting from the message. I think the “institutional bias” statement in Lesson 01 qualifies as a net negative. I also noticed a few distracting pauses in Lesson 3 (going up tomorrow) that I didn’t have a duplicate take. I might just re-record the audio and put graphics in over the video. We’ll see.
The bottom line is that I want something that everybody is excited enough about to share with friends and family. I’m also going to try to push this into other venues like ScienceTV and the NCSE site. So whatever it takes!