#48834: Rick @ shrimp and grits — 11/15  at  11:05 AM
Now just hang on a minute.

On one side, we have a cartoonist who draws a nice, but rather repetitive cartoon about people who work in offices.

On the other side, we have a biologist, whose life's work revolves around the study of biology.

The cartoonist says that the biologist is not a "credible" source for information about biology.

I think the person with the credibility problem here is pretty obvious - and it isn't the biologist with the credibility problem.

Anyone care to tell me what I'm missing here?

#48835: IAMB — 11/15  at  11:07 AM

You people crack me up. If anybody disagrees with you, they haven't studied the issue, and therefore, instead of educating, you resort to an ad baculum form of argument. You seem to have adopted the Muslim "Conversion by the Sword" techniques.

It's not too hard to deduce that someone hasn't studied the issue if they don't even have a clue who PZ is, as evidenced by the many comments on Scott's blog that refer to PZ as a him/her/whatever.

What really pisses me off is the people who claim to have not studied the issue due to lack of access to materials. How f#@king hard is it to go borrow a couple of biology books from the library???!!!

If you haven't familiarized yourself with the pool before you jump in, don't bitch at me if the water temperature isn't to your liking...

#48836: — 11/15  at  11:10 AM
I'm a regular reader of "The Dilbert Blog". In Scott's last entry he provided the link to this site. I made the mistake of actually going to it and reading it, and the comments. It is the epitome of the pure idiocy of some of the debate of evolution vs. intelligent design. People hearing whatever it is that they need to hear in order to do what they think is "proving" their argument. The man is a "cartoonist"! Even if he did believe in Creationism (which he explicitly denies), why attack him? Is he some kind of threat? I don't know...

Anyway, you're distracting him from writing the hilarious blogs he was pumping out. Try reading some of his other entries:
(http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2005/11/awkward_situati.html)
or
(http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2005/10/index.html)
It may give you some insight into why he has his blog.

#48837: Kyle — 11/15  at  11:17 AM
"Certainly not his defense: the "I was just joking""

He never said he was just joking. Congrats on taking two opportunities to politely and resolutely disseminate information to one guy and the thousands who read him, and instead turn it into a poo flinging fest where you spend more time mocking than informing.

All you had to do was be relaxed, intelligent and maybe a tiny bit witty and this would have been a "win" for evolution, instead of just another crappy internet argument.

#48839: — 11/15  at  11:24 AM
Er... he did give an example of 'evolution proponents "misrepresenting" ID'. If you want to check it, or find more, you have Google right there. They're really not hard to find, there's a lot of them out there.

Which, again, is the point here.

Seriously, when disagreeing with something, it really helps to disagree with what's actually said and not some strange twisted version of it.

I mean, come on guys. Adams is saying 'you’d be hard pressed to find a useful debate about Darwinism and Intelligent Design, of the sort that you could use to form your own opinion. I can’t find one, and I’ve looked. What you have instead is each side misrepresenting the other’s position and then making a good argument for why the misrepresentation is wrong.'

So what do you do? Do you take what would seem to be the obvious logical response and actually provide him with a useful debate about it? (you can do that, right?) No. You misrepresent his position (and, bizarrely, take it personally - are you assuming he's read every debate on it, including any you've had?) and then you argue about why he's wrong. Way to go.

#48841: Orac — 11/15  at  11:30 AM
Oh, goody.

Vox Day has noticed:

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2005/11/schadenfreude.html

I'm glad to see he still disapproves of me....

#48843: — 11/15  at  11:34 AM
Scott didn't just learn his "facts" from creationists, he learned denial from Dembski, et al.

Btw, I asked rhetorically on TO Newsgroup, "Who would have guessed that he would be so incompetent?" The response from one person was, "anyone who'd read his book". Not having read his book, I don't know first-hand about any of this, but given his recent BS I'm inclined to think the guy on TO was on to something.

I wanted to add another thing: The whole bit about 10,000 years is not only incorrect, but it misdirects from an important necessity for, and prediction of, evolution. Evolutionists (and geologists) said that Lord Kelvin had to be wrong about his calculations of the ages of the earth and the solar system, because evolution appears unlikely to happen in a few tens of millions of years. That is to say, evolution is subject to constraints, like any real science, and by and large it the constraints accommodate evolution.

As anyone who has enough information to comment on ID and evolution knows, neither IDists nor "evolutionists" (let alone "Darwinists") claim that IDists think the world is only 10,000 years old. But that isn't the point scientifically. ID makes no predictions, and wishes to have the privilege of "being science" without any tests or constraints affecting it. Thus it tells us nothing, it has no potential time or causal problems, and for the same reason has no potential for ever predicting anything meaningful. Creationism is at least wrong, ID isn't even that impressive. Evolution is impressively correct, while it remains capable of raising, and dealing with, problems (which is also why it isn't "Darwinism").

Now the success of evolution in raising time problems and eventually transcending them is hardly its greatest triumph, but it is one that bypasses the clueless Adams. The large number of boxes of transitional fossils, simply for humans (Beijing Man alone far surpassed Adams' stupid claims), Archaeopteryx, the synapsids, and a host of other transitional fossils are far more impressive. Then again, genetic evidence of derivation is even more stunning, and it lacks the informational time gaps which still exist paleontologically (phyla, as IDists have pointed out, without a nod to problems of taphonomy for soft-bodied animals, as well as geological problems).

Adams is ignorant without knowing how and where he is ignorant. Let's also point out that Dilbert hasn't been funny in years.

#48844: — 11/15  at  11:38 AM
Scott didn't just learn his "facts" from creationists, he learned denial from Dembski, et al.

Btw, I asked rhetorically on TO Newsgroup, "Who would have guessed that he would be so incompetent?" The response from one person was, anyone who'd read his book. Not having read his book, I don't know first-hand about any of this, but given his recent BS I'm inclined to think he was on to something.

I wanted to add one more thing: The whole bit about 10,000 years is not only incorrect, but it misdirects from an important necessity for, and prediction of, evolution. Evolutionists (and geologists) said that Kelvin had to be wrong about his calculations of the ages of the earth and the solar system, because evolution appears unlikely to happen in a few tens of millions of years. That is to say, evolution is subject to constraints, like any real science, and by and large it the constraints accommodate evolution.

As anyone who has enough information to comment on ID and evolution knows, neither IDists nor "evolutionists" (let alone "Darwinists") claim that IDists think the world is only 10,000 years old. But that isn't the point scientifically. ID makes no predictions, and wishes to have the privilege of "being science" without any tests or constraints affecting it. Thus it tells us nothing, it has no potential time or causal problems and for the same reason has no potential for ever predicting anything accurately. Creationism is at least wrong, ID isn't even that impressive. Evolution is impressively correct, while it remains capable of raising, and dealing with, problems (which is also why it isn't "Darwinism").

Now the success of evolution in raising time problems and eventually transcending them is hardly its greatest triumph, but it is one that bypasses the clueless Adams. The large number of boxes of transitional fossils, simply for humans (Beijing Man alone far surpassed Adams' stupid claims), Archaeopteryx, the synapsids, and a host of other transitional fossils are far more impressive. Then again, genetic evidence of derivation is even more stunning, and it lacks the informational time gaps which still exist paleontologically (phyla, as IDists have pointed out, without a nod to problems of taphonomy for soft-bodied animals, as well as geological problems).

Adams is ignorant without knowing how and where he is ignorant, and let's also point out that Dilbert hasn't been funny in years.

#48847: — 11/15  at  11:54 AM
Er.. No he didn't

For example, Darwinists often argue that Intelligent Design can’t be true because we know the earth is over 10,000 years old. That would be a great argument, supported by every relevant branch of science, except that it has nothing to do with Intelligent Design.

"Darwinists" often argue that YEC can't be true "because we know the earth is over 10,000 years old...etc" You (and Scott) may be confused because the broad church of ID has many YEC adherents in it using ID as a way to get YEC into schools. I have seen many examples of invective and spleen vented at ID proponents but little or no mis-representation. As someone who works in a multi-national I am a great admirer of Scott's work but Scott's drive-by commentary does him no credit. He has the resources; if he want's to contribute then he should do what everyone interested in diversity of life and its origins should do, get an education.

#48848: fearless leader — 11/15  at  11:55 AM
Color me an iconoclast, but I don't see what purpose is served by getting into a spitting contest with a cartoonist.

What Scott Adams says today is actually pretty insightful. Whether he knows it or not, most of the people out there are very confused by the controversy, and all they see are two groups taking potshots at each other.

If scientists want to be understood clearly and taken seriously, they should try harder to stay on the high road.

I like poking fun at fundies as much as the next guy, but it can be counterproductive.

#48849: — 11/15  at  11:56 AM
Scott didn't just learn his "facts" from creationists, he learned denial from Dembski, et al.

Btw, I asked rhetorically on the TO Newsgroup, "Who would have guessed that he would be so incompetent?" The response from one person was, "anyone who'd read his book". Not having read his book, I don't know first-hand about any of this, but given his recent BS I'm inclined to think the guy on TO was on to something.

I wanted to add another thing: The whole bit about 10,000 years is not only incorrect, but it misdirects from an important necessity for, and prediction of, evolution. Evolutionists (and geologists) said that Lord Kelvin had to be wrong about his calculations of the ages of the earth and the solar system, because evolution appears unlikely to happen in a few tens of millions of years. That is to say, evolution is subject to constraints, like any real science, and by and large it the constraints accommodate evolution.

As anyone who has enough information to comment on ID and evolution knows, neither IDists nor "evolutionists" (let alone "Darwinists") claim that IDists think the world is only 10,000 years old. But that isn't the point scientifically. ID makes no predictions, and wishes to have the privilege of "being science" without any tests or constraints affecting it. Thus it tells us nothing, it has no potential time or causal problems, and for the same reason has no potential for ever predicting anything meaningful. Creationism is at least wrong, ID isn't even that impressive. Evolution is impressively correct, while it remains capable of raising, and dealing with, problems (which is also why it isn't "Darwinism").

Now the success of evolution in raising time problems and eventually transcending them is hardly its greatest triumph, but it is one that bypasses the clueless Adams. The large number of boxes of transitional fossils, simply for humans (Beijing Man alone far surpassed Adams' stupid claims), Archaeopteryx, the synapsids, and a host of other transitional fossils are far more impressive. Then again, genetic evidence of derivation is even more stunning, and it lacks the informational time gaps which still exist paleontologically (phyla, as IDists have pointed out, without a nod to problems of taphonomy for soft-bodied animals, as well as geological problems).

Adams is ignorant without knowing how and where he is ignorant. Let's also point out that Dilbert hasn't been funny in years.

#48850: — 11/15  at  11:57 AM
It seems to me that one thing that the scientists seem to be missing is that Scott Adams is speaking for the common man. Most people have much more going on in their lives than Evolution and Intellegent Design. They don't have the time to go down to the library and read the journals and papers. Most of them probably don't have the education to understand what's in those journals, since they focused on their own line of business, not science. When pretty much all the available sources are in the newspaper or on the internet, it's fairly safe to say that most of those sources are not credible.

#48851: — 11/15  at  11:57 AM
Umm... so am I following this correctly. A bunch of guys who frequent a 'Dilbert' blog are dropping by to call us nerds?

That's pretty rich.

#48852: fearless leader — 11/15  at  11:58 AM
What Scott Adams says today is actually pretty insightful. Whether he knows it or not, he's like most of the people out there who are very confused by the controversy, and all they see are two groups taking potshots at each other.

If scientists want to be understood clearly and taken seriously, they should try harder to stay on the high road and not take a potshot at anybody who happens to come down the road.

I like poking fun at fundies as much as the next guy, but it can be counterproductive.

#48858: — 11/15  at  12:06 PM

Adams is saying 'you’d be hard pressed to find a useful debate about Darwinism and Intelligent Design,

Gosh, you're right: Adams says that. And frankly, I don't know what his problem is (unless he's only joking when he says that). I mean, I'm just another engineer who hacks code for a living -- you know, they sort of schmuck that Dilbert speaks for, as it were -- and I had little trouble finding "useful debate" and "credible sources" (and as a result: learning a helluva lot of facinating stuff about evolution AND BTW that the Creationists and IDers are both a bunch of lying weasels).

So I flatly don't believe he looked very hard, or having looked, did the work to figure out who was worth listening to, and who wasn't. To be sure, there's no shame in being ignorant about something -- this subject isn't necessarily of interest to everyone -- but then why spew one's incomprehension on a blog? Adams really needs to listen to his own aphorism: "When did ignorance become a point of view?"

#48860: — 11/15  at  12:09 PM
PZ-

I am reasonably well educated and resonably articulate but, not having a deep science background I find myself at a loss to prove the credibility of Evolution when confronted with people who, though they may not go so far as to endorse ID, have some pretty fuzzy thinking on the subject.

So I am asking for an explanation that outlines the basic claims Evolution makes and the relevant evidence that backs up those claims. I understand the fossil record and the existence of DNA back up Evolution, I just don't know exactly why. I am left "believing" in Evolution rather than knowing it, so I can only pit my belief against other's belief and discussions degenerate to a fight over belief rather than a discussion of fact.

Your help would be greatly appreciated, either in the form of a definitive explanation or a link to one.

Thanks.

#48861: fearless leader — 11/15  at  12:10 PM
oops---sorry 'bout the multiple posting

#48862: — 11/15  at  12:10 PM
Scott Adams came off looking like a fool, realized it, then did some fast handwaving: "just kidding guys", "just testing ya", "you fell into my trap"...

...all because he is too damn lazy to read a book. Does he think he's still in grade school?

#48865: — 11/15  at  12:17 PM
What Kyle and fearlessleader said.

Guys, I'm the son of a biochemist, and nothing makes me madder than seeing my fellow Christians make a mockery of their own faith by attempting degrade any science that doesn't fit their misinterpretations of the Bible. In other words, I'm squarely on PZ's side in any argument with creationists.

But Adams' point isn't about science. It's about logic and argument. Specifically, it's about "straw man" fallacies and other ways of misrepresenting each other.

PZ, all you had to say was this: "Pretty funny post by Scott Adams. He accurately shows how ID proponents are misrepresenting the discussion. Of course, he's a little off-base on points X, Y and Z, but with all the blather about this in the media, I guess that's understandable."

And that's it. You "win" the argument.

Instead, you've taken the "he who is not with us is against us" approach, and you've assumed he's under some sort of spell cast by ID proponents. (What makes you think he's read ANY of the work you cite? He's making a flip comment, not writing a dadgum dissertation!)

And so now, you're stuck in an argument in which you look rather silly.

Why not save that venom for the people who are actually, you know, trying to tear down science?

#48868: — 11/15  at  12:26 PM
Hmmmmmm...

"Scott Adams replies to my previous castigation. He is not very convincing. His arguments seem to be:

He was just joking… " -- extract from your post above...

Funny how i cannot see that in his blog entry..... perhaps i did not read it all properly...
can someone please point out where this was stated?
I can't find it...

I am having a similar argument with a friend at work and would like to use this point of view but i want highlight where that was said.

Thanks,
Bob

#48870: Federico Contreras — 11/15  at  12:27 PM
<blockquote>PZ-

I am reasonably well educated and resonably articulate but, not having a deep science background I find myself at a loss to prove the credibility of Evolution when confronted with people who, though they may not go so far as to endorse ID, have some pretty fuzzy thinking on the subject.

So I am asking for an explanation that outlines the basic claims Evolution makes and the relevant evidence that backs up those claims. I understand the fossil record and the existence of DNA back up Evolution, I just don't know exactly why. I am left "believing" in Evolution rather than knowing it, so I can only pit my belief against other's belief and discussions degenerate to a fight over belief rather than a discussion of fact.

Your help would be greatly appreciated, either in the form of a definitive explanation or a link to one.

Thanks. <blockquote>

http://www.talkorigins.org

Go ahead and just browse around Bob =) Get some coffee and have fun, I go here sometimes and stay _really_ long, lots of that stuff is quite understandable and the scientists who wrote it are great at popularizing science. I do Graphic Design, so I am no scientist, but I get that stuff.

ID is a pile of horse puckey.

Scott Adams is (still) a maroon.

#48871: fearless leader — 11/15  at  12:30 PM
It's hard to find useful information even when you have a really good idea of what is useful and what is not.

If you google "evolution" or "creationism", 90% of what you find is the crackpot stuff. It's hard to filter.

And then when you run into the legit evolution stuff, it's not unusual to find us having a little fun waiting for the choir to show up, playing around and taking pot shots at the fundies.

The outsider see's this and says, "well, these guys seem to have an agenda, too." An opportunity to set the record straight for them is lost.

#48872: — 11/15  at  12:31 PM
Please excuse the multiple postings--every time I pushed "submit" it indicated that it hadn't posted (most of the time it had not).

#48873: — 11/15  at  12:33 PM
Rob,

I know where you are coming from, and this is definitely part of the issue. I'm a web developer by trade, and I read a great deal of popular science (moreover, I work at a technical university somewhere in Georgia -- guess where), but I'd find it very difficult to go toe-to-toe with a master manipulator like Michael Behe. He's practiced at confusing the issues, and I have neither the experience nor the knowledge to fight off someone like him.

For example, an ID-proponent says there are huge unexplained gaps in the fossil record. I say, no, there are not. But where's my evidence for this? Well, I know where to find the evidence, but I haven't got the time to do so. Neither does my fictional proponent have time to go look that up. So what to do?

Well, that's where credibility comes into play. I have no reason to question PZ's credibility because what I do know is the outlines of how the scientific method and peer review work. I know how rigorous is the process of establishing yourself as a scientific authority. And I know that the rigor of the ID camp consists of calling oneself an expert. End of story.

I'll believe Behe when a significant proportion of the scientific community comes around to his point of view, using the methods with which we should all be familiar -- methods we were taught in high school. It is telling, I think, that ID proponents are bringing their ideas to the public instead of the scientific establishment. Presumably that's because the scientific establishment "won't listen," but given my understanding of the aforementioned methods, they aren't drowning them out due to spite. They haven't proved their case. I have seen new theories rise in my lifetime, so I feel I can be reasonably certain that there is room for new ideas. Why does ID fail? It's not science.

In fact, the failure of ID to rise to the level of science is something even a layman can understand without having to prove evolution. And isn't the burden of proof on the people making the claim?

At the heart of the issue is the fact that the vast bulk of people in the U.S. can't or won't make the effort to understand all of the nuances involved. There's very little I can do about that, and frankly, there's very little that a university prof can do. It's up to elementary, middle-school, and high school teachers to equip people with the knowledge to keep up. Which is why it is important that ID not be allowed to pollute school curriculum unless it should happen to be validated by the scientific community. If Michael Behe can't convince the world's biologists, why should he be allowed to take his case to people less prepared to deal with it?

Sorry for my long-windedness.

#48876: — 11/15  at  12:38 PM
I find it so weird when someone says that scientists aren't a credible source for information on science.

Warning: I am about to reveal my level of ignorance in a manner similar to Creationists giving a talk.

I'm not a scientist. I am, a lay person, armchair scientist, whatever you want to call me. I havn't taken a science class since High School, which was nearly a decade ago. Granted, I have finally strted on my college education, but I seem to be going the math route. I've read some of PZ's more pure biology entries, and at some point my eyes glaze over because I don't have the right level of understanding.

This scientific ignorance is exactly the reason I read blogs like Pharyngula. If I can't trust a biologist to understand biology better than I, who can I trust? Not myself.

PZ Myers may be somewhat mean when he gleefully takes down an argument, but in those posts he really is trying to reach out to the less informed. It's a good thing too, since if I hadn't come accross skeptical blogging first, my little bit of knowledge and whole lot of ignorance could have put me in an odd place.