Saturday, February 28, 2009

we all knew he was a smarty pants

So boy-friend-o was on this show called Faut pas croire, which means "Do Not Believe," a Swiss news show, speaking about Darwin and his birthday.


So it starts off and it's just an intro: blah blah blah Darwin blah blah blah that derned creationism museum in Kentucky blah blah blah, we kind of have it in Switzerland too.

Then we get to Phil at circa 2:44 (I'll tell you about the lady later)

He's introduced as Asst. Prof. at University of Lausanne, and Phil says hi.

Then he's asked about the types of Creationism/maybe origin stories out there, and he says that you can't just say there's not really such a thing as a strict Creationist and non-Creationist, that it kinda varies and that some people aren't into it much at all. Then the interviewer pops in saying something like "like the theory that humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time?" To which boy friend-o responds "well, that's hard-creationism" He then goes on to outline his idea of something that is creationist: that there is a specific (particular) place, earth, or country for us, that there is a method as to how "we" got there and that something separates us, rationality or so.

Then he asks a question of the older lady, who stumbles a bit and takes a long time to answer (more on her later).

minute 5:30 Phil is asked about other religions, and he responds that of course everyone has their own cosmoginy (origin story) that explains the place of humans in the world. The host then asks for an example, and Phil mentions in the context of the Vedas in India the great cosmic sacrifice, which enabled the world, but they certainly aren't as hardcore about it as Christians, it's just kind of THEIR specific creation text.

Then the moderator asks "so it's just a Christian thing?"

To which Phil responds at 6:24, that it has a lot to do with the importance of the Bible, and its place in Christianity, that it gives a history and has been absorbed into the tradition (I know that the first part of this is right, the second is rather speculative on my part).

Then she's asked about teaching about the bible and explaining things to bebehs.

At 8:50 Phil is asked whether you can have a scientific and religious explanation of our origins, and he said absolutely. Then he kind of starts to mumble/talk fast, and my french isn't THAT great, but I believe he's saying that there's no reason why in Switzerland you can't have a scientific explanation of our origins and still have a religious explanation.

Then he's asked about the interaction of scientific and religious theories, to which he says something about her answers and then says that there are limits to scientific explanations and religious ones (very Swiss to split the baby like that), and that the biggest problem is confusing a religious explanation for a scientific one.

Then the host says something about the kids to the lady (it's ALWAYS about the kids)

Then there's time for one more question, but even though I understand a lot of the words, they aren't words that make sense to me, so I don't get the question or the answer really. I think it has something to do with what Darwin means in relation to something else, and phil answers by saying something about questions of "why" and "how" and two things coexisting (I suspect Darwin and religion)

Phil is super smart and handled himself well. The lady was there not as someone debating him but a woman making a different point, that is, about teaching kids about their origins and how you can do that scientifically and religiously and not have your head explode. It's clear to see though that she gets flustered more easily, and her points aren't as academic as Phil's, so if it were a debate, he would totally have won!

Go Philippe!

No comments: