±«Óãtv

So, folks, we're all going, yes?

Creationist blogs all over the country are buzzin!!

Has Myers caused a stir yet in connection to the Irish blasphemy law? Before coming to N.I. he's visiting the republic and announced he has intentions of running foul of that ridiculous new blasphemy law (humorously asking his Irish blog readers to keep bail money at hand). Does anyone know if he has tried anything to test the limits?

Should be tons of fun.

PeterK check out blasphemy.ie and atheist.ie

Creationist blogs all over the country are buzzin!!

Wonder if the QUB creation society or Creation outreach ministries will have a presence ? Would dearly love to be there although I'm a bit strapped for time on Friday. Pity it isn't 7.00 pm.

I think that lecture is acually available on Youtube by the way and it's very good. He comes over as being far less bellegerent in real life than he is on his blog. I find Ham far more offensive.

PS

William: any chance of getting an interview (or having him as a guest) on Sunday Sequence ?

I could well be there H. I have a sort of love/hate thing for Pharyngula. It would be a shame to miss the guy in person.

GV

Surely the blasphemy law doesn't apply north of the border?

Love PZ.

Well, let's hope an Garda Siochana don't lock him up before he gets here :-)

If you can't make the 6pm event
PZ is doing another open lecture at Queens lunchtime Friday 1pm
probably a more acedemic lecture
North Lecture Theatre, Medical Biology Centre, Lisburn Road opp Elmwood Ave
Developmental perspectives for understanding evolution

ally, yep - the lunchtime one is really going to be more about evodevo, and probably will get a bit more technical than the public lecture. Both are likely to be good. The core idea of promoting evolutionary understanding in non-specialists is an excellent one, particularly given that most people don't really understand the theory, yet it is utterly foundational to our understanding of biology and of ourselves. Most creationists aren't actually *bad* or *stupid* - they have not had evolution presented to them properly, or they feel that they are not in a position to criticise vociferous and fiercely religious creationists, who might accuse them of selling out, being un-biblical or even of being Satanic. It's sad that many thinking Christians (and I know that on this blog there are some great exceptions!) choose to duck this issue for fear of offending the creationists.

Rev Ron Elsdon is another prime example of a committed Christian who is nevertheless not afraid to take on the creationists. Fair play to him for that (maybe he'll be at the lecture).

-H

Not going to be able to make it. Hope someone records it and sticks it on line somewhere.

Just come from the MBC evodevo lecture, and it was nice to see a couple of our elite band there. Hi folks! PZ was great - he's obviously tired, and I propose a formal diplomatic complaint to Brian Cowen for allowing the Southern crew to keep him up too late in the evenings.

But that was an excellent talk - conceptually very clear, and particularly interesting in the way he explained developmental plasticity as an enabler of evolution. There are a couple of experiments (particularly on bats!) that suggest themselves after that; it's amazing how the whole field is opening up and enhancing our understanding of evolution.

Will, as I type I understand you're interviewing PZ. Please don't let all this policing and justice malarkey overshadow SunSeq! :-)

Also enjoyed the lecture Helio although some of the biology was a bit over my head. He didn't convince me to become an Atheist. Listening to Ken Ham would.

Agreed - PZ didn't set my world on fire but it was far from a wasted couple of hours. What I found most interesting, as someone whose only knowledge of the subject is what I've picked-up here on the blog, was his account of the evolution of creationism into the various phyla represented here today. I wouldn't, of-course, have missed Brian McClinton's playing 'God's advocate' for any money and very well he did it too! Then I got a free copy of the humanist magazine, not exactly an Oscar-night goodie bag, but I look forward to reading it when I get my coursework completed.

He completely demolished the creationist concept of "specified complexity", as championed by William Dembski and Stephen Meyer of the creationist Discovery Institute. Essentially "specified complexity" as used by Dembski & Meyer is an entirely vacuous concept, and even when the definition can be tied down as tightly as possible, it can't be measured, there are no units, and there is no way to determine whether it is present in an arbitrary system.

From that perspective it was a tour de force. I think there was only one creationist who came down to ask a question at the end, but I didn't catch it, except that he then wandered off.

A good day for science.

Helio - "He completely demolished ... an entirely vacuous concept".

Interestingly enough that is precisely what I thought of that part of the lecture myself.

:-)

We had a good chat about it afterwards; there is more that can be said about this notion of "specified complexity", and other examples of the sheer creationist fail. PZ, as you'll have seen, is actually a very softly spoken pleasant guy, and spends more time listening than he does talking. I'm sure he'll recover from the late night we subjected him to later...

For those interested in the creationist canard of 'specified information' or 'specified complexity' there is a write-up by Jeffrey Shallit on Recursivity:



As Helio said in posts 19 and 17, it's all plucked out of thin air, for the sole purpose of trying to provide scientific credibility where there is none.

The Shallit post is a really good one; I've been hammering at this with a couple of creationists for quite some time now, and they simply *will* not provide a definition of "complex specified information" (CSI) that allows you to identify it in a given system. They've been properly rumbled.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.