Scott Adams on Intelligent Design
Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, has started a blog, which I think is funnier than the comic strip. Today, however, he posted something about the Intelligent Design vs. Darwinism debate. Here are the first two paragraphs:
To me, the most fascinating aspect of the debate over Darwinism versus Intelligent Design is that neither side understands the other side’s argument. Better yet, no one seems to understand their own side’s argument. But that doesn’t stop anyone from having a passionate opinion.
I’ve been doing lots of reading on the subject, trying to gather comic fodder. I fully expected to validate my preconceived notion that the Darwinists had a mountain of credible evidence and the Intelligent Design folks were creationist kooks disguising themselves as scientists. That’s the way the media paints it. I had no reason to believe otherwise. The truth is a lot more interesting. Allow me to set you straight. (Note: I’m not a believer in Intelligent Design, Creationism, Darwinism, free will, non-monetary compensation, or anything else I can’t eat if I try hard enough.)
Read the whole thing.
Here’s what really, really bugs me about the ID/Darwinism debate: A lot of Darwinists are dead set against people talking about ID at all. It’s like they’re collectively holding their hands up to their ears and repeating “THAT’S NOT TRUE! THAT’S NOT TRUE! YOU CAN’T SAY THAT!” without actually arguing the facts.
Science is based on freedom of inquiry; if you start suppressing your opponents, you’re almost certainly going to be leading the way into error.
It’s classic groupthink. Everyone is so convinced that Darwinism must be true, that they’re unwilling to examine the possiblity of other explanations.
That’s not good science.
On the other hand, there’s no room for stuff like this:
The people of Dover, Pennsylvania recently had an election for their local schoolboard. In a fairly close election, every member of the school board that supported the addition of intelligent design to their school curriculum was voted out, all eight of them. What did Pat Robertson have to say about the free exercise of people’s rights to hold elections?
I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover. If there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city. And don’t wonder why He hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for His help because he might not be there.”
That’s every bit as bad as what the Darwinists are doing.
November 13th, 2005 at 2:10 am
How do you test ID? Its science, science, science, and then SHAZAMM a miracle - then science, science, science.
Let’s face it, ID is magic - not science.
November 13th, 2005 at 2:17 am
The exact same argument works against evolution: There’s a lot of science involved, but there’s no getting around the miracle of the spontaneous generation of life.
By the standard you set above, evolution is magic, not science.
November 13th, 2005 at 2:05 pm
If you call it “punctuated catastrophism” it sounds more educated than “magic”.
November 13th, 2005 at 4:57 pm
No, no, no. Evolution never claims to know everything. Or that everything is even knowable - such as the universe before the Big Bang. But it doesn’t paper over those gaps with magic. Scientists continue to study, think and research, debate, seduce grad assistants, etc.
ID says- “we can’t figure out how this could come about via evolution so it must have been magic.” It can’t be studied in the lab, reproduced, or proved. Convenient, huh?
What I don’t get is how smart educated people such as Scott Adams and others I know can buy into it. It boogles my mind much more than the possibility of life crawling out of the ooze.
November 13th, 2005 at 8:26 pm
First — ID and evolution aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. Specifically, ID attempts to fill in some gaps in evolution. As such, the two views are more like compatible philosophies than opposite ends of the spectrum. Call it magic, call it God, call it whatever you like. But it’s as the one commenter said, evolution can’t know everything, so some explanation must be given.
Second — Truth and science are not necessarily the same thing. The only person to have witnessed the beginning of the world relayed His account of it and has been quite universally discounted (and generally rejected) because no one can “prove it.”
Frankly, I prefer to listen to truth than someone’s proof (a generous description). Before you knock that perspective as so much religiosity, realize that true religion (if it is to have any real value) must have a basis in and an impact on the real world. It is where the physical and spiritual collide that truth is found.
I’d love to see someone pursue the quest of the origin of the world giving credence to both the Biblical account and the geological record — they are not mutually exclusive … my eternal destiny depends on it.
November 13th, 2005 at 10:16 pm
There is actually a lot of information considering a biblical approach to the geological record. The Genesis Flood (Henry Morris) is an excellent technical starting point and more recent geologic technical works seek to investigate the geological record with reference to a biblical world-wide flood. I’d refer you to the “Answers in Genesis” link for books available.
November 17th, 2005 at 10:33 pm
Actually, ID is not about plugging gaps in evolution. ID as expoused by Bill Dembski (www.designinference.com)makes a number of positive claims including:
1. It is possible, in some cases, to reliably infer intelligent design on the basis of empirical observation.
2. There are certain biological structures which meet the criteria for such a design inference.
Neither of these claims speaks to questions of common ancestry or descent with modification at all. They do, however, conflict with the claim that all biological structures can be explained purely in terms of unintelligent causes.
November 18th, 2005 at 5:09 pm
I like the way Scott Adams has analysed the situation. I agree that neither side can be considered a scientific theory. At some point, both sides must accept certain premises by faith. I personally don’t think either side should be taught in a science class (philosophy, religion, sure, but not science). He’s got both sides pegged perfectly, they misrepresent the other’s position and then argue against the misrepresentation.
I don’t believe in creationism because of any scientific proofs. I trust my God, and my God has told me that He created the world.
November 20th, 2005 at 11:22 pm
Just take a look at a single cell … the complexity, the intricacies, the interrelated parts. As Michael Behe points out in his book, Darwin’s Black Box, many aspects of the cell are “irreducibly complex”: in order to evolve, multiple parts would have to occur simultaneously. This alone is a powerful question mark evolution has difficulty finding a logical answer for. ID offers a viable alternative, though fallen man in his blindness fears to consider the possibility that there just might be a great Answer out there in the vast unknown.