A very interesting course and it has given a great knowleddge to me about the concept of science and religion . just amazed and the professors taught this in a very impressive way . very nyccc .
Fine course, nice references for further reading, clear and nice instructors. Only two where a little odd: Statis Psillos, talking too fast, and Conor Cunningham, a bit too theatrical.
By Nathan B•
Very interesting course. I certainly learnt a lot about science and philosophy, especially relating it to religion, and the history behind each domain.
By Claudio C•
It is necessary to improve the subtitles. It seems to me that they are not correct in some situations.
By Victor B•
This course provides an interesting overview of the field. Serves very well as an introduction to the field.
By Susan H•
Have really enjoyed this course, very informative and fascinating. Opened my mind to many different ideas.
By Roselle E O•
Could have been fun to learn with more visual aids like video or animations.
By Sergio S•
Sometimes the lecture material were vague, but I really liked this course
By Swen L•
Interesting introduction with a good list of further reading material.
By Hongfei C•
It's a good foundation for further study in this area but just to
By Lavinia W•
Good critical overview of science, philosophy and religion
By Stephen F•
Good course, but only covered a small subset of topics.
By Harvey B•
Interesting and varied, if slightly basic at times.
By Christopher W•
A thought-provoking and informative course.
By Keith P•
Very enjoyable course! Highly recommended!
By Aaron F A C•
Very good. It was awesome, I learnt a lot.
By A L G•
It was an enlightening course, Thank you
By kiran D•
By Nikhil R•
Week 1 of the course seemed very interesting. A lot of interesting questions were raised - enough to lead me to view the course in a rather positive light. As I progressed through the course however, I noticed that some rather contentious claims were made to seem to have more credibility than they in fact do. Take for example something that was said in week 4, lesson 3. It was insinuated that Lamarckism plays a significant role in evolutionary biology, something that is widely questioned by eminent specialists in evolutionary biology (for ex. Jerry Coyne).
Furthermore, it sometimes seemed that rather than presenting the facts for the learners to judge, the lecturers were presenting their own views (this was especially the case in week 4).
This course is being funded by Templeton Foundation, an organization that promotes religious apologetics. It seems that rather than presenting facts as they are, the course is disseminating material deeply influenced by a religious agenda.
By Åke G•
Interesting course in virtue of prompting new viewpoints. However, it kinda ends there. Thought much of the content was exaggerated to provoke discussion, losing it's value of giving an accurate evaluation of the topics involved.
For example, it is suggested in week 4 that, if humanity could evolve better through Adolf Hitler, and the ultra-darwinian is right, he would be morally right. Since Hitler cannot be morally right in any stretch of the moral imagination, ultra-darwinianism is wrong.
However, if Hitler wouldn't have initiated concentration camps and war, thus helping humanity prosper by creating room for more evolutionary diversity (which is key to progress), he wouldn't have been Adolf Hitler as we know him.
Nevertheless, thought-provoking as hell. Going to apply for Edinburgh this semester, hope I get in! :)
By Bob R•
I'm thrilled that there is a course that surveys these topics and the content, for the most part, is good. The accompanying ebook is actually better than the course and is worth reading for anyone new to these disciplines. For future iterations, I would consider gathering feedback about the assessments. The questions are often confusing and a bit tedious. It's very possible to completely grasp the content but to struggle with the quizzes due to poor wording or the fact that often what's being assessed is not grasp of the subjects covered but instead whether or not the learner could recall the ways in which the instructor talked about the subjects, which is different.
By Cem Y•
I know it was a beginner level course but I feel the subjects were presented very, very superficially. The recommended readings do flesh out things a bit. The lessons of the last week, those about evolution and creationism, turned out to be simple explanations about what evolution is, and not very much about how it relates to creationism or the philosohy of science.
The structure of the lessons were also odd. There are several 3 to 5 minute lectures followed by a one-question quiz. This breaks concentration. I feel it would have been much more engaging if the subjects were presented in 20-30 minute lectures followed by 5-10 question quizzes.
By Lenka G B•
This course has design problems. There is no clear thread that gives coherence to the different parts. It is interesting that it addresses different topics, and that there are several teachers who explain them. However, it is clear that there is no joint work between the exhibitors. Despite the quality of some (very remarkable Martin Kusch), the total sum does not manage to present a good quality proposal.
By Nikki W•
I was a little confused because for having a focus on "Science and Philosophy", it seemed to me to mostly talk about science and religion through a philosophical lens. The last module was very scattered and hard to follow. Other than that, very interesting, well-presented material.
The course includes a wide range of topics that are well explained. I don't understand the concept of the course, how the different topics were selected or how they were assigned to the three parts of this course. It seems quite random and unstructured to me.
By Malladi R G K•
philosophy and science relation is great but about science and religion, those facts are already known and nothing new is learnt. Free will is unnecessary topic I guess. Religious part can be developed.
By Francisco L•
The course is somewhat interesting but my expectations were different, perhaps the description of the course should be expanded so that the student would know with greater certainty the content.