I’m a BILL!

September 7, 2011 • 11:00 am

I had the honor today of being chosen by The Panda’s Thumb website as the deliverer of the fourth designated BILL (“Brilliant and Illuminating Lecture”). My lecture was actually delivered at the Atheist Alliance International meeting at Burbank, California, in October of 2009.  While Panda describes this as “a tour de force of scientific explanation, presented by a well-known scholar described by a colleague (who introduces him in the video) as “the principal guru to go to on evolutionary genetics in the world,” I have to admit I’ve never watched the whole thing. Like many speakers, I can’t bear to watch myself on video.  I may, however, have posted this before, in which case my apologies.

Anyway, if you haven’t seen it, here it is.  I was introduced by Richard Dawkins, whose remarks were very kind:

The Thumb suggests you watch for the following highlights:

Richard Dawkins being coy.“Maybe you don’t realize how multifarious this evidence really is.”

What we mean by a “scientific fact.”

A good outline of the facets of evolutionary theory.

On preaching to the choir: “Why am I doing this? I like it. What can I say.”

A nice emphasis on predictions of Darwin’s original proposal.

Marine microfossils showing the “instant” of speciation

Horse evolution… one toe left…[audience laughs and applauds] [JAC note: this was an unplanned, spontaneous, somewhat rude gesture. What can I say–I was angry at creationists!]

A nice breakdown of a feathered dinosaur and a very clear discussion of whale evolution.

Retrodictions and embryology: a mutant dolphin with hind limbs.

Linking vestigial features with vestigial genes that used to control those features: yolk!

Very concise and clear discussion of oceanic islands and biogeography.

Bad design and the prostate: “a miracle of bad engineering.”

A list of observations that could falsify evolution.

There are six other lectures online from the AAI, including Larry Krause’s animated performance and the lecture in which Dan Dennett coined the term “deepity.” Others BILLs are #1 (Richard Dawkins), #2 (Sean Carroll), and #3 (V. S. Ramachandran).

h/t: Michael

52 thoughts on “I’m a BILL!”

  2. Thank you, I look forward to watching. Some time ago I did see the Krauss lecture for which the organizer had originally suggested “We’re all f****d” as the title. The reasons for this become obvious once you listen to the material.

  5. is it weird that i kind of think your voice sounds like Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs? ha! could you post a video of you reciting the line: wait. was she a great big fat lady?

    thanks for the video, jerry! watching now.

  7. I bought your book after watching this video– a year or so ago. You did great. And damn, what an endorsement by Dawkins.

  11. Congratulations, Dr. Coyne! You’re in some great company (with the other award winners) and deservedly so.

  12. I want to add my congratulations to a very good lecture. And particularly to the positive spin on how to refute those who do not think rationally. TEACH our children to do so! Which can be done in any school. They will then apply it to all areas.

  13. Tsk, tsk. Prof. Coyne fails to mention the lecture by Carolyn Porco. A bit of male chauvinism perhaps?

    1. The other AAI 2009 videos in the link that Jerry could have mentioned:
      Krauss, Thomson, Dennett, Dawkins, Myers & Porco

      He picks out two for special mention & one of them wasn’t the sole woman in the list of six ~ therefore a suspicion of male chauvinism. You are rather mean minded to suggest this !

      1. Hey, I was just rattling Prof. Coynes’ cage a little. I am quite aware that the good professor is no male chauvinist (c.f. Abbie Smith over at the ERV blog).

  14. Horse evolution… one toe left…[audience laughs and applauds] [JAC note: this was an unplanned, spontaneous, somewhat rude gesture. What can I say–I was angry at creationists!]

    You keep lying, when you oughta be truthin’
    and you keep losin’ when you oughta not bet.
    You keep samin’ when you oughta be changin’.
    Now what’s right is right, but you ain’t been right yet.

    These BILLS are made for talking, and that’s just what they’ll do
    one of these days these BILLS are gonna walk all over you.

    [Thinking Jerry had his boots on.]

  16. “no endemic mammals on oceanic islands”…Oh dear. Might want to let them thar extant chiropterans know about that, Jerry. Or just modify slightly to “non-volant mammals” for your next talk 😉
    (oh, and of course forget all about the incredibly rare, but fantastically awesome small mammals that once did make it to places like the Canary Islands and even Galapagos on their own, but which now are mostly extinct. One (?) ‘rice rat’ species still holding out on Galapagos, though).

    But great talk in any case, BILL! 🙂

    1. I’ve read that there’s some small chance that an O. galapagoensis galapagoensis population may still exist on the western side of San Cristóbal ~ is that the ‘rice rat’ that you’re referring to ?

      The Spanish reached the Islands in the 1530s & there’s also signs that native South Americans got there before then. It’s postulated that the ‘rice rat’ reached the Galapagos Islands by natural rafts, but I reckon a lucky small mammal would need to survive maybe a week at sea. I wonder how cold it gets at night at sea in the ‘windy’ part of the year ?

      To be fair to JAC in WEIT he talks of endemic aquatic mammals [Hawaiian monk seal & Juan Fernández fur seal] & also he references Darwin on oceanic island bats

  17. I would also recommend watching the other talks given by various speakers at this event. They were all very interesting.

    Congratulations BILL!

  18. Here’s what I don’t understand. Logical arguments for evo is fine but what’s being ignored are 2 things:
    1. Marketing 101 tactics and tools
    2. The science of brain, psychology and advanced social sciences to understand the, largely unconscious, drives that present the main obstacles to denial of and attacks on the scientific method — especially in the political and policy arenas.

    In a way, we are letting our opponents frame the debate. There are other tactics and strategies.

    At the moment, we are fussing with mainly crackpot attackers and attacks and ignoring the more serious policy and political battles.

    Science will never win the hearts and minds of the masses, let’s stop trying. We can win some policy battles if we improve our strategies and tactics.

  19. I’m a little suspicious of that selection of “34 technologically advanced countries.” Are they meant to represent the 34 most advanced countries in the world? Is Israel, for example, less advanced than any of those countries? How about Canada, China, Russia, North and South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand? Those are just random countries that I was able to think of offhand. Are they all less advanced than any of the countries on that list? I wonder if that’s really a fair comparison.

    1. That slide is from an article entitled “Public Acceptance of Evolution,” in the August 11, 2006, issue of Science that was written by Jon Miller [MSU], Eugenie Scott [NCSE] & Shinji Okamoto [Kobe University]. They compared the United States with thirty-two European countries and Japan. It was a meta analysis of data collected by various agencies over 20 years: pdf >>> HERE

      There is a short discussion on the analysis HERE

      The researchers were not doing original surveys ~ they were constrained by what suitable data was available to them & since a lot of the work was done by phone it makes sense that it involves technological nations. I think that if they had dug up a suitable poll for say New Zealand it would have been included too. I don’t think the analysis was specifically meant to exclude the third world

  20. Jerry, it would be nice if you can produce an edited version of this video, without the creationist bashing portions. Something safe to share with religious people who may simply be uninformed.

  25. I didn’t know you were so animated. 🙂 It seems like you really get excited about your subject. It was fun to watch. Thanks!

    1. “These are merely thoughts which careen – clanging, loudly at times – around the skull of my conscience. Any resemblance to reality is purely coincidental”

      You are right about that

  30. Here’s our perspective:
    – Magical thinking-religion-ideologies are symptoms of the problem, not the problem
    – The problem is the human minds inability to accept uncertainty, make believe pattern creation and the “kill or be killed” behaviors

    All this take place unconsciously with the verbal behavior of religion just post hoc.

    Arguing for just gives the anti-science folks more ammo and exposure.

        1. It simply does not make any sense !

          What does “Arguing for just gives the anti-science folks more ammo and exposure”

          And who is “our” in “our perspective” ?

          1. This is simple, for some:
            1. Tactically, no arguments can dissuade magical beliefs. Logical arguments like the kinds in this vid really don’t work. Magical beliefs are never logical nor accessible to logic and principled argument.
            2. We know from brain and soc sci research that the committed just are emboldened and attack more unreasonably when faced with contrary evidence.
            3. Arguing logical to magic is letting the opponent define the fight and tactics. They want outraged scientists to spew facts and figures — it’s make the scientists and science look even worse to the undecideds.
            4. Most important, using logic against magic turns off the policy makers — that’s abig mistake.

            So who are these vids talking to — the convinced already. Who cares?

            To win against magic you have to use it’s own rhetorical tricks and tactics. Most don’t want to “stoop” to that. Fine, get comfortable with being the goat.

            With all the “educational” and pop media efforts on science, in America, where are we? Further behind the 8 ball.

            Pop(ular) science is an oxymoron in America. The opposite is true in Britain and other parts of the world. America is a deeply fundamentalist and magical belief system based culture. Always will be likely.

            Our concern is that while we fiddle away our resources in the pop media, we are losing the battle for the policy makers respect. Big mistake.

          2. Your final paragraph has cleared up the mystery ~ you use “we” & “our” for “I” & “my”. This is why your material looks like the output of a chat bot rather than a person.

            If you represent a collective, but you don’t make that clear, it obscures your message
            If there’s one of you, it’s a tiresome affectation.

    1. uh, I’m failing to see where you’re being censored?

      I am beginning to think you have… issues… though.

      1. So now you devolve to personal insults along with calls to post less. Apparently nobody can discuss the issues. Predictable.

        On others having “issues” — “If you spot ’em, you got ’em.”

  32. I have the AAI 2009 DVD and have watched Dr Coynes lecture at least 4 times. It is fantastic. Of course I have also read WEIT.
    I particularly liked the 2009 conference because the best lectures (I think those of Jerry Coyne and Lawrence Krauss) were more about science than atheism. This ties in very well with the “positive values” that PZ Myers has discussed that the Gnus promote – a love of reason and science, and valuing evidence and truth. This is why the Gnus and their admirers (myself for instance) have sch little time for accomodationists. They don’t seem care whether what the religious say is actually true or not.

Comments are closed.