Intelligent Design Part 2
I cut quite a bit from the original. Let me know what you think.
Only two episodes left! I also just noticed that YouTube now allows high-resolution content to be uploaded and displayed. Because of this, I’m thinking about creating a separate channel for this series and uploading DVD-quality versions. Thoughts? Would you find it easier to share this series with others if it were a “stand-alone” product wholly separate from BTF or my blog?
GJG
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Brilliant as always. The Newton/Laplace example is so classic. I can’t imagine much else you could have said about the issue unless you want to start deconstructing a couple of the more celebrated examples of “irreducible complexity”; but I suppose you didn’t do that for fear that it would get too technical.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Yea — I hate to leave 3-4 min of space. I feel like I need to cram something in there, but sometimes less is more. The periodic table example mocking the ID tactics was a bit over-the-top for the tone I’m trying to set. I also had to cut out my introduction to Newton’s quote after my daughter, who takes Latin at her school, politely informed me that I mispronounced “Principia” — so much for my public school education!
I’m also working on a study guide that people can download and use if watching these in a group setting.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Yes, the Newton/Laplace example was very good and to the point. It inspired me to write a post at OutsideTheBox. A lot of my Christian friends fail to see the harm of presenting I.D. alongside evolution in the classroom. The Newton quote hits the nail on the head!
Thanks!
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Gordon, if you put the emphasis on the wrong syllable for “principia”, it’s good that you cut it. But if you said “prinssipia” instead of classical “prinkipia”, you pronounced it like Newton would have.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:45 am
So now I committed 2 fouls? Great — thanks allot Stephen!
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Its great having a linguist on board. Who else would know that?
February 24th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Well, I’m not a linguist, but I did minor in Classics, and I have an unofficial major in pedantry. So I would have picked up the ball if Stephen hadn’t posted about it.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:50 am
I want to take a moment and just let you know how great I think this series is. As a scientist (ecology) and a Christian, I am often struck with how difficult it is to present current scientific thought to Christian audiences in any way that is credible or does justice to both. I think you have done it here….or at least done the best job that I have seen so far. Personally, I have come to have an understanding that accepts both current scientific understanding and biblical Christian literalism as truth. But it is very hard to articulate, and has come only after having a solid foundation regarding the philosophy and history of science and a historical and liguistic understanding of the Bible. Anyway, I think these are great and I look forward to seeing the final two videos. God Bless.