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 way in. Creationism and Intelligent Design Evolution History Humor Philosophy Science Species and systematics Species concept
Evolution The new Darwin film 6 Sep 2009 From this review and several other things I have seen of it, The Creation looks to be a pretty sympathetic treatment of Darwin’s life and work. It’s a pity it’s based on a false premise: that Darwin was motivated by the death of his daughter Annie to become irreligious, or… Read More
Epistemology Affirming the consequent and doing science and history 3 Jan 20123 Jan 2012 Here’s a conundrum for the simple minded: One of the classic fallacies is the fallacy of affirming the consequent: If P then Q, Q, therefore P It’s an obvious logical fallacy because there might be many reasons for Q. And yet, all science rests on doing just that. Suppose I… Read More
History Darwinism now affects intelligent design film! 13 Apr 200818 Sep 2017 Following on from my demonstration that Darwinism is entirely responsible for anti-Semiticism back on 1 April, comes this discussion of how Darwinism has even infected the morals of anti-Darwinians, via John Lynch; in this case Maciej Giertych, one of the pro-ID “scientists” interviewed by the film Expelled, and a notable… Read More
I wish I had known you gave a lecture at Oxford. I would have made the effort to come down. Still surprises me how I can use some of the ideas developed and apply them directly to art. It does not seem natural! But would seem that it is.
Oops, wishfull thinking on my part. Would have liked to drag a few postmodernists along from history and English lit. from that neck of the woods to hear you speak. I am sure I could get some heated family debates out of it for some time to come.
Personally, I love intentional language in biology. I find it very tiresome when people challenge me and ask me to spell out what I mean when I use terms like “want” or “for”. In fact, their usual tack is to claim that I am making a stupid anthropomorphic error. This soon gets tedious – but it is not bad enough to make me go for the long-winded option of spelling out what I mean explicitly every time.
Hey, how come when I click on that link, it says “Access denied, lowly scut. You are not authorized to access this page!” ? (or something like that). I sense CONSPIRACY!!
I watched the video the other day. But I just tried to watch it again, because I probably missed some things, and now I’m denied access. Anyway, from what I remember it was very interesting and also clarified a number of confusing points. You talked about Haeckel, so I’ll mention that I saw a collection of Haeckel’s artwork when I was shopping for a 2010 wall calendar the other week. There were lots of calendars to choose from and I didn’t choose that one, but I recognised the images.
Actually, I thought you came across very well. You looked relaxed. You spoke easily and without stumbling or hesitation and gave the impression you had mastered your subject. Above all, there was enough inflexion in your delivery to make it easy on the ear. They should invite you on to BloggingHeads to debate someone like Michael Flannery on his thesis that Darwin’s notebooks reveal a very different and less praiseworthy character than the public persona.