Scott Adams: Pointy Haired Boss?
When it comes to evolutionary theory and intelligent design (ID) it sure looks that way to me. I know that this is a bit old, but I only recently stumbled across it via the ID the Future Blog, but it was rather shocking to see such a display of intellectual dishonesty and support form psuedo-science from somebody that makes fun of such things (in the corporate world).
For example, Mr. Adams starts off with,
First of all, you̢۪d 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 can̢۪t find one, and I̢۪ve looked. What you have instead is each side misrepresenting the other̢۪s position and then making a good argument for why the misrepresentation is wrong. (If you don̢۪t believe me, just watch the comments I get to this post.)
Is it really so hard to support one’s belief that one cannot point to a single example given that people have been arguing about intelligent design on the internets [sic] for the past 10 years or so? You’d think that at least one example of where biologists have misrepresented the ID arguments could be found via google, but no, apparently Mr. Adams is unfamiliar with internet search engines. The closest that Mr. Adams comes to providing an example is his claim that biologists often reply to claims about intelligent design by arguing “that Intelligent Design can’t be true because we know the earth is over 10,000 years old.” Of course he was called on this almost immediately and his response was just amazingly lame: “Well, it was friends of mine who are scientists and they’d be embarassed if I revealed their identities.” I’ve been reading about ID for around 10 years and frankly, I don’t recall anybody using that argument. [Side note: while I don’t know of any of the main ID proponenets–i.e. the people coming out of the Discovery Institute–being young earth creationistions (YECers), they do have YECers that support ID and hence many of the Discovery Institute guys are very, very reluctant to answer questions about the age of the earth (the notable exception being Michael Behe)].
Mr. Adams continues to revel in his ignorance with this,
On the other side, Intelligent Design advocates point out a number of flaws in the textbooks that teach Darwinism. Apparently both sides of the debate acknowledge that the evidence for evolution is sometimes overstated or distorted in the service of making it simpler to teach. If you add to that the outright errors (acknowledged by both sides), the history of fossil frauds, the subjectivity of classifying fossils, and the fact that all of the human-like fossils ever found can fit inside a small box, you have lots of easy targets for the opponents. (Relax. I̢۪m not saying Darwinism is wrong. I̢۪m saying both sides have lots of easy targets.)
Again, he was called on this. It was pointed out that there are hundreds of fossils for many of the earlier hominids such as Homo erectus and Homo ergaster and that if you were to put them all in a box you’d need a pretty damn big box and it would be full. Mr. Adams replied in a rather dishonest way by stating he meant we could only take one example, and that we’d also have to grind up up first. After all, one of his commenters point Mr. Adams to this picture showing the morphological similarities between fossil hominid skulls. Even if we took only the skulls, it seems to me we’d need a pretty good sized box for just those. Never mind femurs, pelvises and those highly controvesial knee joints. So yeah, you’d probably have to grind them up. But this is true of anything. I could probably fit 3 Ford Excursions inside my house with room to spare if I melted them down into square lumps of metal. What does this prove?
And as for the fossil frauds, they weren’t discovered by ID advocates, young earth creationist, creationists of any stripe or even a syndicated cartoonist. They were discovered by scientists doing…wait for it…science. So bringing this up is like saying the cops are bad because there are criminals.
And finally, it has been about 8 years since Behe published Darwin’s Balck Box and yet the ID community can’t point to a single example of where the evidence in one field isn’t nearly as strong as scientists in another field think it is. For example, if it is true that the paleontologists are worried their data isn’t all that great couldn’t they find paleontologists who think this way? And similarly for microbiologists, biochemists, and so forth. And on top of this, explain their justifications for thinking their evidence is weak. After all, that is the claim Adams is making. That scientists in each field have a narrow understanding of evolutionary theory and think their evidence is shakey, but surely the guys in the other fields have much, much better evidence. The IDers have had 8 years since the publication of Darwin’s Black Box and according to the IDers themselves, longer than that, and what have they come up with? Pretty much nothing.
And the scientific community has been comparing notes. The online version of this can be found at Talk Origins and the related site Talk Design at these sites you can find evidence supporting evolutionary theory form different fields being brought together. And guess what, the data, when combined, is pretty impressive. So much so, that Michael Behe doesn’t dismiss “darwinian evolution”. Behe thinks that most of what we see in the world today arose via “darwinian evolution”, but that in a few isolated areas “darwinian evolution” is insufficient to produce what we observe. If one were to be charitable to ID, this is one thing a person could point too. Since ID has become such a hot topic it has focused quite a bit of attention on evolutionary theory and has caused people to look at the evidence in different branches of science and see how it all fits.
I wasn’t sure of Adams’ intentions when I first read what he wrote on this topic. I suspect he was just trying to promote skepticism of all stripes and missed the mark, badly.
In the end, in all of his posts on the topic, I do think he made good points about how the way the arguments are phrased by both sides of this confrontation (I won’t call it a debate).
Full disclosure: I am against the teaching of so-called Intelligent Design in science classes, but I have no problems with it being added to a philosophy or comparative religion class.
I read a long letter posted on the American Spectator defending ID written by a biology professor. He made three points.
First, Darwin’s math doesn’t work, particularly in the pre-Cambrian era. I believe he is correct in that and Darwin was aware of the problem. Problems with Darwin’s math, however doesn’t lead to the acceptance of ID.
Second, the earliest known life on earth had complex DNA, allowing for sight and limbs in the distant future. This is obviously problematic since nature is going to seek a simple solution and not plan ahead for a couple of million generations. This might be a result of us not really finding the earliest life or that life was seeded on earth. The earth being seeded does not require a higher power or intelligent life elsewhere, simply a lot of time and micro-organisms ability to float through space without being destroyed.
Finally, he compared the time-line of Genesis with the beginning of the universe through the development of life on earth and man. He felt they were consistent in relation but clearly not in length. While I doubt that is correct, it was sort of interesting to read.
C.Wagener
(1) Darwin’s math was off? What math? I recall he made some bad calculations about the age of the earth because Lord Kelvin kept telling everybody the Sun couldn’t possibly have burned for hundreds of millions of years, but Kelvin’s the one proved wrong there.
(2) The earliest *known* life had complex DNA? Maybe, but there’s no reason DNA couldn’t evolve itself from simpler self-replicating molecules. Anyone who thinks this is a problem is not much of a scientist.
(3) Genesis is actually a pretty good creation story, scientifically speaking, as compared with some others. But it’s just that, a story.
(2) The earliest known life had complex DNA? Maybe, but there’s no reason DNA couldn’t evolve itself from simpler self-replicating molecules. Anyone who thinks this is a problem is not much of a scientist.
This is the typical strange loop employed when one cannot defeat an argument. of course we don’t have evidence *yet*.
Steve proves Adams’ point.
The main problem I have siding with the pure evolutionists is the snide, condescending way they treat anyone who just asks questions.
Anderson: Anyone who thinks this is a problem is not much of a scientist
Verdon: Mr. Adams continues to revel in his ignorance
I really don’t want to associate with a “scientist” who has to stoop to name calling in order to back up their argument. In my mind, if you have to resort to this, then you already lost. Why would I want to associate with people like this?
When I was a kid, I read a book that offered as a theory “not widely accepted” a sequence for the origin of elements of our solar system that had the plants mostly formed before the sun’s fusion engine had stabilized. The methane atmospheres of the inner planets were theorized to have been cleared off by a big burst of radiation and gas when the sun’s expand-and-contract startup sequence finally got stable fusion started.
Years later, that theory seems to be the prevailing one. As far as I know, all the elements from the Big Bang to the initiation of solar fusion do seem to follow the same sequence as in Genesis. It’s only where Genesis starts explaining the rise of life that the sequence breaks away from that theorized by modern science.
I see ID as a way for Christians who don’t insist that “six days means six days” to reconcile their belief in the Bible with the findings of science. In a logical world it would only serve to isolate the pure Biblical literalists, which would mean that only the Biblical literalists would be against it.
Instead, many of them have embraced it and put it forward as an alternative to science, with the results we now see. If Biblical literalists were Macchiavellian enough to have planned such an outcome to protect their position, they couldn’t have done a better job.
The math the biology professor was referring to was the predicted amount of life that would come about due to Darwin’s models. Essentially there was too much diversity in too short a period of time.
With respect to DNA as a self replicating chemical, it would still seek to conserve energy and consequently not develop things that didn’t contribute to survival. Viruses are often described as self replicating chemicals, but to my knowledge don’t develop extraneous parts not needed for survival. And to clarify, the “problematic” statement was mine (a non-scientist) not the biologist.
On another note, I think the McGehee comment is quite right.
Anon, what would you think of a mathematician who tried to cast doubt on “2 + 2 = 4” by complaining “but where do these numbers COME FROM”? He wouldn’t be much of a mathematician, would he? In fact, he would be Calvin from the comic strip.
The reason that educated people are condescending to ID advocates is that ID advocates are full of shit, and it’s hard not to be condescending to people who are full of shit.
As for Bryan, he presents basically 2 choices when presented with a complex molecule:
(1) It originated from simpler molecules.
(2) God (or the Martians?) put it there.
How hard a choice is that? Come ON, people.
As the good people at talkorigins.org put it:
If you hear anyone citing an alleged reason why Darwinism doesn’t work, talkorigins.org should be the first place you go to see what scientists say about it.
Consider the flu virus, which is a jumped-up RNA strand. It replicates very, very badly; anywhere from 90% to 99% of its copies are so flawed, they can’t reproduce themselves. But the virus makes it up in quantity–tens of thousands of viruses can be produced in a single bacterium, thus producing sufficient reproducible viruses to cause lots of trouble.
Of course, it’s RNA’s complexity that makes its reproduction so sensitive. (Hence the evolution of DNA with its “proofreading” mechanism.) Mere self-replicating molecules would have a better success rate.
Anderson is a good example of an evolutionist telling a story which is statistically impossible with no evidence to back it up.
Show me how a simple virus is produced from inert chemicals. Having troublr Anderson? Yes, because no one has ever done it. In fact it has been estimated that there is a 1 in 10 to the 150th power that one molcule in a virus could accidentally form. 1 in 10 to the 25th power is statistical impossibility.
An easier task. Lead and gold are one proton apart on the periodic table. I give you lead. Please make gold from any natural or unnatural process. There is no known processes for elements being changed into higher order elements. The big bang is a big bust.
Please show me the evidence you have that ANY species has ever changed into a different species. I have billions of trillions of examples of species reproducing only their own species. You have no examples of change. Lets see… which position is better supported by the evidence at hand?
Evolution is a fairytale for adults who must take it on faith because of the plethora of science that says it could not have happened.
There are two ends of the evolutionary spectrum. Those who are ignorant and don’t understand the science. Then there are those who know the science but are in denial because the alternative is too horrible to comprehend. Most evolutionists are a combination of both but continue to worship at the humanist idol of evolution. Blind faith!
Anderson: I agree with anon about the arrogence quote. And its not as simple as getting mad at someone saying that “2+2=4” is wrong, or how did we get the numbers. The subject of the origins of life are far more complex than that. Is it reasonable to expect everyone to see the light after seeing it?
Also, is it reasonable to believe in a god at all? A higher power? Because it seems that, to Christians like myself at least, evolutionists not only decry creationism, but the concept of God generally. They give token service to “well, you don’t have to disbelieve in God to believe in evolution”, but then they seem to disdain anyone who suggests that God had anything to do with it.
This isn’t everyone – but it is a large percentage of the public face of evolutionism. That’s what bugs me about evolutionists – they seem to look down on anyone who DARES question their beliefs. Again, if it were a subject like math, I could understand. However, on a subject as complex as the origin of life, is it so preposterous to think that some people might question that life came out of no life? Or that the universe came out of nothing? The arrogence with which my beliefs are dismissed puts me off on this one.
B. Minich, people don’t jump up & argue that general relativity is b.s. and then cite bogus arguments against it, because that would look foolish. Would it be arrogant of scientists to have zero patience with such people?
The argument reported by anon, as stated, was just ignorant. There is too much educational material out there for someone to believe such stuff unless they just insist on being ignorant.
N.b., btw, that the origin of life isn’t really an issue for natural selection. God could drop the DNA molecule into the universe, and Darwinism would proceed unmolested. The biogenesis problem arises precisely BECAUSE Darwinism hasn’t been refuted; people who want to insist that God made everything “by hand” have to retreat to the biogenesis issue.
Well, I’m an “evolutionist” (like I’m a “gravitationist,” I guess), and a Christian. I can be a Christian without believing that God plucks the autumn leaves from the trees and guides them to the earth. Ditto evolution, natural selection, etc.
There is an easily elided difference between “disdain for God as a substitute for scientific explanation” and “disdain for God, period.” I think that is the source of the attitude you’re seeing.
Now, for RA’s nonsense:
So you don’t believe in star evolution either? Admirably consistent of you.
Given what overall population over how long? It’s statistically impossible, I’m sure, that I was born, given the facts required for my parents to have been born & conceived me, for their parents to have been born & conceived them, etc. Yet here I am, wasting time refuting gibberish when I should be working.
As for the no-new-species argument, see the talkorigins link above. I direct not RA to this, because he obviously is not interested in learning anything, but anyone else who might be interested.
RA,
What is statistical impossibility? How small a probability do we need before something is impossible? And what if it happens anyways?
Tell us who the designer is? Having trouble? Bet you are since no IDist has to date come forward with even a hint of the designer (well unless the IDers are in front of a friendly religious crowd), let alone any evidence, experiments or predictions. Be consistent now and reject both ID and evolutionary theory.
This is some Dembski stuff. Unfortunately Dembski’s mathematics is very much like 2 + 2 = whatever I say it is. Even more unfortunately, the amount of set up costs to debunk Dembski are rather high.
Anderson has given a link to Talk Origins, please go there and read the essays on speciation events. There are plenty of speciation events. Or click on my name on this blog over on the left and scroll down for the post on Dallasaurus turneri which is a transitional fossil for mosasaurs.
Ignorance of evidence that supports the theory of evolution is not evidence of ID.
This is a strawman argument. There are plenty of evolutionary biologists and other scientists who believe in evolution that are also deists. They are not mutually exclusive. Granted those that are atheists and they are strident, but is that any worse than some of the things that come out of the mouths of idiots like Pat Robertson?
I’m sorry, but this is just a bit silly. Even if you are a God fearing Christian you believe that life came from non-life. That is precisely what God did. The Christian creation story is a story of abiogensis just as much as the story told by biologists.
abiogensis, or is it abiogenesis, either way does that mean that the “life” is a part of the body? is it true that if you could remove the space in the atoms ,the earth would fit into a thimble? do we now know at least one more level of reduction? do scientists [maybe mathematicians] suspect even further reductions? does the”big bang” theory state that all matter began at one mathematical point? such point having no physical dimension, from there ever tenuously expanding outward in at least three dimensions. at it’s “point” of irreducibility matter ceases to exist, so when it comes to matter; it doesn’t. life preexisted matter.
Steve:
Your argument seems to be that the Creator wanted to create life; so, He created a system of materials, distributed in a certain way, that would, under certain included rules, in the fullness of time, yield up conditions that would result in elements of the materials combining and becoming self replicating.
RJN,
Well I suppose one could hold such a view. I suspect that such a view would be unverifiable, and hence not science. But if that is how you want to look at things, be my guest.
While we’ve got you on the phone, RJN, what exactly is a “Hoaxacaust“?
I find it very, very difficult to imagine someone who thinks there’s not enough evidence for the Holocaust, but who thinks that there’s evidence of ID. If I have misrepresented your beliefs, of course, kindly correct me.
The so-called evidence for the so-called Holocaust is insulting in its brevity. I consider the Holocaust a hoax, by some, and naive acceptance, by others, of concentration camp legend.
If science arrayed its talent, and discipline, against the myth of the Holocaust we might get some truth on the subject.
While I have your attention, may I say that you are a rude fellow, and a rather undisciplined thinker. Are you a scientist?
No, much worse: a lawyer. And not only that, but a lawyer who believes in the Holocaust.
Being called “rude” logically should not lose its force coming from a Holocaust denier, but I find that it does anyway. Must be that undisciplined thinking.
I knew you were no good Anderson! 😉