Open Thread
info
Format for printing
Pirate mode
This is not going to become the all-Scott-Adams blog, and this will be my last post on the subject, but he has put up another comment—a request that people write in and show specifically where he was wrong. Of course, Adams moderates his comments, and is going to use this as an excuse to whine editorially. For instance, there's one comment there that says that "Scott claims that the Darwinism/ID debate is scientific", and that ID doesn't meet the standards of science; Adams says he didn't say that and dismisses it. But of course, what Adams did do was assume parity of the scientific and creationist arguments, and present the ID arguments against evolution as if they had some legitimacy. You can tell that he's just going to hide behind his excuse of "I'm a humorist just reporting what some people have said," and that thread is going to go nowhere.
So, instead, I'll take advantage of the open thread mechanism here and invite you all to put your rebuttals here. Remember, take specific things Adams has said and explain why they are wrong.
It is really silly and hypocritical for Adams to be doing that. My original comment on this business was a list of specific things Adams got wrong with explanations for how they were wrong, and he just ran away and said he didn't say any of it. Expect much hairsplitting from him.
Anyway, here's the short list of things I said in that first post. Add some more!
- Adams claims the Designists only differ from us in answering the question of how change occurred. I pointed out that they don't try to answer the "how" question, and asked him to list some specific hypotheses.
- Adams made a vague statement that "Darwinism" was full of flaws; it sounded much like the usual Discovery Institute claims, most of which are cataloged in Wells' Icons of Evolution. I linked to a refutation of the book.
- Adams made a specific claim that all hominid fossils would fit in a small box. I gave a link and a quote from a source that shows that is wrong, and also mentioned that it was irrelevant—ID creationists argue against evolution of properties common to all chordates or all eukaryotes.
- Adams made claims about biologists that are completely wrong. He says that "90%+" of all scientists think Darwin got it right; I pointed out that this is not the case at all, we are well aware of parts that he got wrong, and this is why we object to the silly business of calling us "Darwinists".
- Adams says that it is a "not-so-kooky argument" that scientists are so specialized that they don't understand the big picture, that all scientists are thinking their own fields lack evidence for evolution, and we're all cluelessly assuming the other guy has the data. This is not true at all for most of us. He seems to reject the arguments of scientists, though, because they are scientists. Apparently, cartoonists are supposed to be better able to understand what scientists know than scientists themselves.
(Oh, and since this is an open thread, feel free to say anything else you want, too. I agree that Adams is rather boring, and I'm sorry that recent server problems have limited what I can post.)
He specifically stated in his last email that reviewing TalkOrigins is what started his tirade. He feels that TO is poorly done, and that they misrepresent the ID people, and attack the misrepresentation. There's also a comment that by default implies the TO/science side do not argue rationally.
Talk.Origins has many debates on their site where the creationists have responded to their evolutionary critics, and while I'm sure one can find a snarky response or two to Ed Conrad's eternal claim about man being as old as coal, there are others like as the matter of those polonium "halos" where creationists are given a very fair opportunity to respond. I suspect Scott Adams may be cherry-picking from the vast material on Talk.Origins in an attempt to rationalize the situation he's now found himself in with PZ.