Classic circular illogic from ID proponent in debate on Scott Adams blog

[BurtWorm]

Scott Adams of Dilbert fame has weighed in ignorantly on the ID/evolution debate on his blog, trying to sound fair and balanced and managing only to sound duped by his reading of ID texts:

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2005/11/intelligent_des.html

PZ Myers of pharyngula.org explodes Adams' "reasoning" here:

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/scott_adams_is_a_wally/

But the most sadly hilarious post in the "debate" Adams sparked was this one:

"I think one problem we have in the west is the necessity of being able to "prove" everything. I'm a creationist. Why? One reason is because I know the God of the Bible well enough to trust Him. I don't require proof and I don't require Him to provide proof. His word is good enough for me."

:eyes:

There are just no words...

[atommom]

1. I expected better logic from the creator of Dilbert.

Honestly, he sounds dumber than the pointy-haired boss.

[Goblinmonger]

2. I am dumbfounded

I seriously got to write me one of them books.

As a "writer" of sorts, you would think he would appreciate the literary need for fables/parables/metaphors to get points across rather than to be taken literally.

I have so much I could say, but left my flame-retardant suit at home today.

[beam me up scottie]

3. NOOOOOOOOO!

Why, oh why did Adams have to drink the Koolaid?

His spiel reminds me of Robert Kennedy hypothesizing about vaccinations as if he was on equal footing with the scientists.

:banghead:

[BurtWorm]

4. His kind of "reasoning" is probably representative

of where a lot of middle brow middle Americans are on this subject. They want to be "fair." They don't want to get the gods mad at them. They son't trust science or scientists. They can't think for themselves, so they regurgitate the latest "interesting" spiel they've read on a subject.

[beam me up scottie]

5. I'm afraid you're right.

Don't want to piss off The Big Guy by relying on godless scientists to discover and chart the unknown.

I have a feeling that for those of us in the buy-bull belt, Kansas is only the beginning.

[salvorhardin]

10. Sounds like he drank it quite a while ago

If you go by some of the comments on Pharyngula.

#48578: Ebonmuse — 11/14 at 12:25 AM
This isn't the first time Scott Adams has expressed sympathy for creationists. If I recall correctly, in one of his earlier books he predicted that the theory of evolution would be scientifically disproven in his lifetime. (To establish a baseline, I believe that in the same book he also predicted that ISDN would beat out cable to become the dominant form of broadband Internet.) Then again, he also believes that you can magically make things happen by writing them down ten times per day. The lesson, I suppose, is to let cartoonists like Adams do what they do best - lampoon stupidity in the business world - and leave the science to people who understand it.

#48583: Zeno — 11/14 at 01:43 AM
Scott Adams first took up cudgels against evolution in The Dilbert Future: Thriving on Stupidity in the 21st Century. In chapter 14, A New View of the Future, he declared "The theory of evolution will be scientifically debunked in your lifetime." Adams is a brilliant cartoonist who wonderfully skewers the insanity of the corporate environment in his daily strip, but a scientist he ain't. Adams could have spared himself much trouble by omitting that foolish final chapter. He maunders on about "new ways of looking at things"; damn, why did he think of that first! So freaking brilliant!

Funny thing, though. Adams has no idea what will replace evolution. He just thinks it's wrong. (And this from someone who makes his livelihood from mocking the foolish!)

I did not realize that Scott Adams was never an engineer. Is this true?

#48588: SEF — 11/14 at 05:01 AM

Scott Adams is a Wally

That's a shame. But it's worth remembering he admitted early on he wasn't even an engineer - to which the obvious corollary is: let alone a scientist. We've already seen from many previous examples that the engineer types (including computer programmers) and authoritarian types even further away from reality (lawyers and clerics) are the least likely to comprehend any science, while still pretending/insisting that they have an equally valid opinion. So a mere observer and hanger-on of these types, such as Scott Adams, is unlikely to do any better.

But this is good to know. Scott Adams a creationist. Who'd'a thunk it? I will now delete his site from my bookmarks.

[beam me up scottie]

12. He isn't an engineer?

And he's a creationist?

That really sucks.

Knowing that about him just kind of ruins it, you know?

His strip was so analytical, I can't believe he's a Koolaid addict.

Maybe the pod people got to him.

[ET Awful]

6. You know him? Really? When did you meet him? Did you discuss it

over a few beers at the local pub? While you were getting to know him, did you bother to ask him why he screwed so many things up? Like . . . giraffes. Why the hell did he make giraffes with such long necks? Sure, you could use the excuse "so they could reach the leaves at the tops of trees" but that just begs the question "why not make the trees shorter?"

While you were getting to know him, did you ask him about that whole business with Joshua and the sun standing still? I still want to know who all life didn't immediately cease to exist when that happened. I mean . . . if the sun "stood still" (which is based on the fallacious assumption that the sun circles around the Earth), then during that standing still time, there would be no gravity, which would basically result in an Earth devoid of life, as the atmosphere would have pretty much disentegrated.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

7. He seems to be confusing creationism and intelligent design

I reject "intelligent design" because it is the anthesis of science. Any time you say, "I don't understand why X is the way it is, so God/Superbrain/Santa Claus/FSM must have made it that way", you are ignoring the whole purpose of science, which is to formulate laws and theories in order to help us understand how things work and predict how things will behave.

[wryter2000]

8. I think he's been possessed by an induhvidual

I'm so disappointed in him. Yuck.

[trotsky]

9. Argh, and the "thinking" that really makes my skin crawl:

"Well, both sides have to be taken on faith."

Urgh! Such ignorance and closed-mindedness, wrapped up in one little sentence.

[salvorhardin]

11. How about the one commenter on Adams' site?

Posted by: Ian | November 12, 2005 at 04:07 AM

One thing that bothers me is that so many of the evolutionists don't appreciate the sheer cleverness of our bodies design. Sure there are some bits that totally suck. Knee joints. The appendix. Mortality.

But I'm an engineer, and I'd never be able to design something as clever as even the most basic bits of our body. For example: the way our skin self repairs minor damage. If I did, I'd never have to worry about bumping into other cars in the parking lot again. "Sorry about scraping your car. Don't worry - it will fix itself in a couple of days!"

OK - I've played around with genetic algorithms and appreciate how clever they are at designing 'solutions' to 'problems' without the need for an 'intelligent watchmaker'.

But you've gotta admit, for all that we complain about it - we are pretty well designed.

Anyone who disagrees is welcome to design their own body and transfer their mind into it.

Just don't expect me to be the guinea pig.

Mac

There's some really scary thinking going on out there.

[beam me up scottie]

13. Thinking is one word for it.

"We're pretty well designed" ?

Are idiots like that born or created?

[BurtWorm]

14. The strange thing about that statement is that it's true

even if nature is the designer. You don't need a god or an alien or an "intelligence" of any kind to credit. Nature selected for the "design" we've got.

By the way, if some intelligence were responsible, why did it give lizards and starfish the power to regenerate limbs and then neglect to give this power to its "higher" life forms?

[salvorhardin]

15. "If I can't see how something could have evolved...

...then the only other explanation is some kind of supernatural designer."

This is what this idiot's argument boils down to.

[BurtWorm]

16. The god of the gaps.

:eyes:

[BurtWorm]

17. Update

Adams replies to Myers:

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2005/11/intelligent_des_1.html#comments

And Myers replies back:

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/scott_adams_digs_a_deeper_hole/

And the kookie Christian says:

Ok, so the first 2 times I read this post my eyes tricked me into thinking "uninformed" was "uniformed." I was baffled as to why people in uniforms were leading the argument, or even being mentioned in this article for that matter. Guess my eyes haven't evolved into communicating with my brain properly.

By the way, I'm the worst kind of fanatic. I believe 90+% of scientists, pretty much all science books, and millions of people are compeletely wrong. I believe the earth is more like 10K to 20K years old, and there was no evolving - only adaptation. I'm a pure Creationist (also known by the political morons and media as an "Evangelical Christian"). The Bible said it took 6 days to go from nothing to everything, and I believe it. I might be wrong, but I'm willing to bet my entire life (and eternity) on it.

[WhollyHeretic]

18. So I guess he believes that dinosaur bones were placed by the devil

He used to be funny 10 years ago before he realized he could make more money by telling the same freakin' joke everyday, his strips are as entertaining as Blondie now.

[BurtWorm]

19. Just to be clear, he's not the kookie Christian.

I don't think...

I think that guy is just some dope who hangs around the Dilbert blog.

[WhollyHeretic]

20. Oops, I read that wrong, I think I need a nap

I still don't like his cartoon anymore, it was really funny when he first started out and did all sorts of stuff but it is mind numbing now.

[BurtWorm]

22. Apparently he's always been a bit of a jerk.

http://pharyngula.org/index?URL=http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/4260/

[salvorhardin]

21. I'm feeling intellectually lazy today (just like Scott Adams!)

So I'm just going to crib from one of Pharyngula's commenters and leave you with a couple links and, appropriately, a comic.

Alternet excerpting Norman Solomon's book The Trouble with Dilbert (originally posted sometime in 1998, that or my next link is psychic).
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/4260


Tom Tomorrow writing about Scott Adams and Norman Solomon from October 1998 (scroll down to 10/23/98).
http://www.thismodernworld.com/pages/wor/wor_cjournalOct.html

And the shiny comic. Apparently from December of 1996 if I'm decoding the filename correctly.

[BurtWorm]

23. That's a great Tom Tomorrow!

:applause: