Throwing rocks at nerds

[kisc]

Dilbert creator Scott Adams recently had some fun poking the scientists with sticks.

I found his comments amusing because they mirror some of the things I think about, particularly regarding my recent discussion re: "Did GWB actually lie

Comments

[mistergone]

Adams' point is actually sort of ridiculous. Saying, "Both sides don't address the others' argument" is just plain wrong. Lots of people on boths sides of the argument are stupid - I will never deny that.

But Intelligent Design, at its base, says evolution is wrong. Intelligent Design tries to be science an it says evolution cannot be true. That is incorrect, by all scientific standards, which Intelligent Design consequentially ignores.

Religion can exist alongside evolution. Intelligent Design cannot.

Be informed. Read this: http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/

The point-and-counterpoint on this page explains why intelligent design is pseudoscience, why evolution does not constitute atheism, and it does so in a way that is reasonable and researched, as well as being very accepting of religious beliefs.

[kisc]

I've never heard ID indicted in quite that way. I'd always sort of assumed the ID was essentially "evolution sposored by god, whatever god you like", and I think a lot of people have assumed the same thing

[mistergone]

The "you can put God wherever you want in Intelligent Design" idea is a Great Idea!

Too bad it's not the one put forth by ID enthusiasts. What is being debated hotly in schools and whatnot is not a cool, laid-back sort of idea of allowing people to interpret facts with whatever spiritual/religious overlay they desire. That'd be awesome, but it's not what's actually happening.

(And trust me, I am 100% in-favor of laid-back, 'interpret the facts as you will' sort of ideas about science, nature and religion.)

The problem is books like, "Of Pandas and People," the book that ID folks are proposing to put into schools alongside biology textbooks. "Of Pandas and People" (and other books like it) ignore facts like the fossil record and genetics to promote the idea that biological organisms just burst into being with all of their features intact. Here's a quote from "Of Pandas and People":

"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact - fish

[kisc]

Now Chuck, you are jaded enough to know that people mostly develop a theory first then go find evidence to support it.

I mean, maybe you have to do that scientifically as well, what do I know, but Gil from CSI says he lets the evidence lead him to a theory. And that seems like a better way to do it.

I'm going to read that thing yet, but it sounds like ID is just old-school-burn-Darwin-at-the-stake creationism with an attempt to throw some veneer of science on it?

[kisc]

I'm going to start replying to myself now. There's stuff I want to comment on in my ID search that is just plain fun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design#Irreducible_complexity

So Behe basically takes something out of context and says that you can't take pieces of it out of context.

Aside from being wrong, he is humorous.