A night about religion 1 Oct 2010 I’m part of a tag team night for the Student Philosophy Association at the University of Queensland. The Facebook page is here. I’m arguing for… guess which? Philosophy Religion Philosophy
Creationism and Intelligent Design Wilkins on screen 10 Nov 2009 Proving that I have a great face for radio, you can see the second (but not for some reason, the first) of two video interviews (vlogs) that I did for NYC Atheists recently. There’s a really good shot of my right shoulder giving a talk about one third of the… Read More
Creationism and Intelligent Design Pope on evolution: more of the same teleological thinking 26 Apr 201126 Apr 2011 Recently, the Pope did what religious leaders appear increasingly inclined to do on Easter: bash science: Benedict emphasised the Biblical account of creation in his Easter Vigil homily, saying it was wrong to think at some point “in some tiny corner of the cosmos there evolved randomly some species of… Read More
Humor But, this is exactly right! 17 Aug 201117 Aug 2011 This is why philosophers should only have parrots, actually. Read More
Hmmm… Roland will argue that there is substantial empirical evidence for the miraculous, and that contemporary understanding of God is similar to physicists’ understanding of quantum mechanics in the 1920’s. Would “confused” be a good description? Is the Holy Ghost the theistic equivalent of Schrödinger’s cat? (yes, I know that was later, but God can work backwards in time – ask Wm. A. Dembski for details) Anyway, I hope you all have fun and don’t squash any of the students.
A sub-atomic incident? I wonder how Joseph would’ve taken that when Mary broached the subject? ‘Hey Joe, I’ve had a sub-atomic incident, and erm, you’re gonna be a daddy!’
John– heads-up (if you haven’t already seen it)– the current (30.ix.2010) “Nature” has a News and Views about an article in “Ibis” about species. An attempt to discipline the species concept (the?) for purposes of biodiversity surveys: start by figuring out how different (genetically, appearance-wise…) non-interbreeding sympatric species are (these are thus the “gold standard” for species), try to rule that that’s the degree of difference that should be used for non-sympatric populations which could be distinguished or synonymized… (An accident that it comes from a bird journal? there have got to be groups where it is harder to be sure that sympatric populations are non-interbreeding than birds!)
Thanks, Allen. A quick look over indicates that this is basically OTUs for BSCs. I’ll read it in detail when I can and blog on it.