If all they do is talk about philosophical concepts, I have no problem with
that, but the description of the lecture series suggests that they will also
try to argue that the validity of the science that biologists do is
questionable because the philosophy they base their science on is
questionable. If they were actual working biologists they would know
better, because they would see for themselves that the validity of any
science is based on the data collected, not some nebulous philosophy that no
scientist is taught in any event.
By pretending that they do not need to have any training or experience in
biology in order to be able to critique biological data or theories, they
misrepresent themselves to the public and alienate those in the scientific
community they wish to influence. By claiming that biologists are too
biased to understand their own work, and that only outsiders like themselves
can provide that understanding, they display their arrogance as well. It's
as simple as that.
Kevin L. O'Brien