Second, the Church has had it's own problem through the centuries, not the least of which was a long period of time when it was unduely influnenced by Aristotelian philosophy, more than by good Bible exegesis. There are many abberations in the positions of the church, particulary through the MIddle Ages. None the less, many of the scientists that he refers to found it inportant to view the world through theistic eyes, recognizing the place of man and the universe.
Thank you for your reply. I did acknowedge that his scope was narrow albweit important: in the present-dat, anti-religion climate it's good to remind people of the many scientists that saw in their viewpoint no fundamental contradictions.
I still retain the view expressed in the previous posts: it would be significantly more helpful to address at least some of the aforementioned questions. Note that limitations of space are not present: instead of just piling up more examples, he could have easily broadened the scope.
This whole lecture boils down to this: "Is it possible to be a Christian and a scientis? Yes, look at me. Here is a list of people like me."
Too simplistic, especially for a scientist.
This is not a fair comment. You may not agree with the conclusions of medieval exegesis, but the commentators of the Middle Ages read Aristotle through a Biblical lens, not the reverse.