I attended a talk at NG Gemeente Stellenbosch-Sentraal’s discussion group for “Our Religion and Science”* before, it was quite interesting to see what they were up to with their discussions. (*That doesn’t translate well. “Die Wetenskap” is “The Science” – incorrect in English, and it isn’t the plural, “the sciences”.)
In any case, of particular interest, I’m quite sorry I’ll miss this one, they’ve invited Dr George Claassen! He’s quite an outspoken atheist (or should I call him an agnostic? not sure…), slightly vitriolic by some accounts, blogging at Prometheus Unbound. What would make this so interesting, is to see how he presents himself in person, when talking to a… “sophisticated” religious group, i.e. not fundamentalists, not anti-science evolution-deniers.
I’m blogging this in the hopes that some of my blogging friends might attend.
Date and Time: Tuesday 10 February from 17:00 to 18:00 (lecture) followed by discussion of the subject, until 18:30.
Title: Religion and Science: Dialogue or Duel?
Place: Stellenbosch
Language: Afrikaans… (Geloof en Wetenskap: Dialoog of Teenstryd?)
Let me know if you’re interested in going (drop a comment and fill in your email address correctly), and I’ll pass on the details!
Also interesting is the next lecture/discussion:
Ons volgende lesing en gesprek sal o.l.v dr. Jurie van den Heever (spreker) op 24 Februarie plaasvind oor die onderwerp: “Darwin se windhond ontmoet Darwin se Engel … Hoe om Richard Dawkins op die vingers te tik”. Almal welkom.
Dr Jurie van den Heever is a paleontologist, I had a good chat with him when I was still in Stellenbosch. This one has me equally curious, if I were in town, I’d be there! He’s a good scientist with a really good head on his shoulders, and has grappled with creationism/creationists on Stellenbosch. It sounds to me like he’s also playing an important role in helping South African teachers get the teaching of evolution right. As such, he surely has a good sensitivity to South African culture and what it means to introduce greater scientific knowledge within our culture.
The title of his talk is something like “Darwin’s greyhound meets Darwin’s Angel … How to rap Richard Dawkins over the knuckles”. (“Darwin’s greyhound” refers to Dawkins, like “Darwin’s Bulldog” refers to Thomas Henry Huxley from way back when.) Anyway, based on the title, I wouldn’t be surprised if the talk touches on the kind of material mentioned in Darwin’s Angel. And it is always good to get a discussion going, with multiple viewpoints, assuming the viewpoints are well thought out, well considered, thorough… and Jurie’s will be!
Oh, and if someone can make a recording (especially of Claassen), I’ve heard back from one friend that can’t attend, who’s as eager as I to find another way of hearing Claassen in that context. Are there legal issues involved with doing that? For something other than “personal use”?
11 responses so far ↓
1 Ben-Jammin' // Feb 10, 2009 at 3:22 am
I thought Dawkins’ nickname was Darwin’s Rottweiler. (shrug)
2 Hugo // Feb 10, 2009 at 4:56 am
it took me a while to find a source confirming the “greyhound” name. I found a page that was mostly talking about Gould, that gave that name to Dawkins. (i’ll probably miniblog the page “tomorrow” when I’ve finished reading it.) Until I found that page, I worded it as a question rather than a statement. (shrug)
Does it sound derogatory to say “Darwin’s dogs” don’t represent Darwin’s personal opinion? (And personal opinions don’t represent science, of course…)
3 gloep // Feb 10, 2009 at 11:25 am
Wens ek kon gaan.
4 Kenneth Oberlander // Feb 11, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Damn…missed George Claassen. But will definitely go to Jurie’s talk if I can…ironically, I know him quite well, but I’ve never seen him give a talk! Should be entertaining.
5 Wim Conradie // Mar 2, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Hi Hugo
Slipped up a little on reading your blog.
I was at both of these meetings and both are in my opinion the best I have heard so far at that church group (my involvement are just over a year now).
As always in any society there were one or two fundamentalists that were a bit emotional during the Q/A sessions. But in general I was very impressed about the group’s maturity in promoting open thought and also the organiser’s ability to keep the debate balanced and on topic.
I even asked George for his PowerPoint, which he was very willing to email to me – I’ll forward you the email, but please ask him first if you want to post it somewhere.
6 Hugo // Mar 3, 2009 at 9:48 am
Ooh, great, thanks! How about giving us your general impression of Claassen’s talk?
Kenneth, did you miss Jurie?
7 Kenneth Oberlander // Mar 3, 2009 at 9:56 am
Damnit!
Yes, I did. I’ll see if I have time today to go and speak to him about how it went.
8 Kenneth Oberlander // Mar 3, 2009 at 5:02 pm
OK. Just spoke to Jurie. He said it went well, and he was well-received.
9 Hugo // Mar 5, 2009 at 1:52 am
& Thanks Wim, I’ve got the powerpoint slides waiting in my inbox, I’m keen to read it, probably this weekend. At that point I can figure out whether it is worth putting it up somewhere “as is” (getting George Claassen’s permission first).
10 Hugo // Mar 5, 2009 at 1:55 am
Kenneth, did you get some info on the contents of the talk? (E.g. that at the second link in the post?)
Or Wim anyone else that attended, for that matter, was the talk more or less about the kinds of topics at that link? (Darwin’s Angel on Wikipedia.)
11 Kenneth Oberlander // Mar 5, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Jurie took me through his talk. It’s not exactly the kind of stuff that I would present, but this is just stylistic differences. But yes, Darwin’s Angel made an appearance.
Leave a Comment