Hey, this guy in an old Dilbert cartoon looks familiar!
 |
Too bad Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, is an anti-evolution loon. Irony!
Tip o’ the magic wand to BABloggee John Culbert.
About Bad Astronomy
If you went to BadAstronomy.com and found yourself here, never fear: the BA Blog has moved to its new home at Discover Blogs. The original BA site (with the Moon Hoax debunking and all that) is still online, too.
Phil Plait, the creator of Bad Astronomy, is an astronomer, lecturer, and author. After ten years working on Hubble Space Telescope and six more working on astronomy education, he struck out on his own as a writer. He has written two books, dozens of magazine articles, and 12 bazillion blog articles. He is a skeptic, and fights misuses of science as well as praising the wonder of real science.
Contact me: The Bad Astronomer "at" gmail "dot" com
Bad Astronomy is a Wikio Top Blog! Clearly, Wikio has excellent taste. 
Bad Astronomy was chosen as one of Time.com's Best Blogs of 2009. Subscribe to BA using an RSS Feed
Death from the Skies!
Order a copy of Death from the Skies! from Amazon, Barnes and Noble, or Borders.
"If things worked the way I wanted them to, any reporter about to do another 'sensational' story on deadly meteors would consult this volume, and bang! common sense would find its way into the news. How strange would that world be?"
-- Adam Savage, Mythbusters"Reading this book is like getting punched in the face by Carl Sagan. Frightening, but oddly exhilarating."
-- Daniel H. Wilson, author of How to Survive a Robot UprisingSocial/Networking/Cool Stuff
DISCOVERmagazine.com: Latest Articles on Space- DISCOVER Blogs: The Loom
February 1st, 2009 at 2:19 pm
I’ve always enjoyed Dilbert, and Adams’ books as well, until one of them had a chapter in the back extolling the virtues of “positive affirmations” and numerology. Yeah, Dilbert’s funny, especially for those trapped in corporate jobs, but the man does have a nasty streak of woo in him.
February 1st, 2009 at 2:25 pm
You confuse your own bad reading comprehension and rumor with my opinions which are, for the record, more skeptical than my gullible critics’ views.
February 1st, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Too bad Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, is an anti-evolution loon. Irony!
WHAT?! That’s news to me!
February 1st, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Actually, I wonder about that. I don’t think he’s ever expressed his opinion, simply because he has said this in so many words: “Don’t think that you know my opinion on this because you read my blog.”
And he put forth a pretty good piece in God’s Debris, if you like to think a bit.
Irony: in Pharyngula, the creationist noise is outweighed by political noise, as a putatively educated audience fails repeatedly to use the same analytical logic on their political views that they would on a whelk in a supernova.
February 1st, 2009 at 3:01 pm
“Too bad Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, is an anti-evolution loon. Irony!”
WHA????? I guess I need to stick to “The less I know about the personal lives of celeberties I like, the better.” Unless I am stalkling them like Dr. Plait.
February 1st, 2009 at 3:32 pm
He’s not so much an “anti-evolution loon” as he is a generalized loon. The man’s just wacky.
February 1st, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Yes, but wacky in an entertaining way. Adams’ post above makes me wonder exactly what he believes, but to me, it matters not one whit — I enjoy his spot-on take of corporate life and that’s all I worry about so far as he is concerned. Sometimes I would swear that he works where I do, which of course I know he doesn’t.
February 1st, 2009 at 4:07 pm
My own “bad reading comprehension.” Heh. Good one, Scott! You really are funny.
February 1st, 2009 at 4:25 pm
The “Amazing Ronny” is seriously weak in the beard department.
February 1st, 2009 at 4:54 pm
You see Adams’ incomprehension of the difference between ignorant denial, and skepticism. I don’t actually know if that’s he at comment #2, but it sounds like the standard rubbish he dishes out.
Oh yes, he defers to experts, unless the lying hounds at the DI actually claim that there is some kind of conspiracy among scientists to suppress criticisms and descent. Being an ignoramus, of course, he has no capacity for judging that or anything else related to ID and evolution, but he sure has a lot of animus to project against those whose knowledge is vastly superior to his own.
So it’s just more drivel from him. He can’t even make a funny strip any more, let alone justify his ignorant attacks against science.
And you know, he’s an engineer. Not to put down most engineers, who are rather better than your average Adams/IDiot, but we’re rather familiar with engineers who fail to differentiate between their own knowledge of making complex designs, and the non-rationally produced (fitting non-teleological evolutionary predictions almost down to every last detail) complexity found in living organisms. Adams is a great example of why Randi fights ignorance and woo.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
February 1st, 2009 at 5:10 pm
I believe Scott Adams writes to provoke. Certainly he plays with concepts that seem woo; but I’m not entirely convinced he believes them. Not only that, but it appears he enjoys it on a perverse level when scientists and other skeptics are angered by his thoughts. Hence his frequent response, “Dance, monkey, dance.” It’s reminiscent of Andy Kaufman.
I love BA, Pharyngula, Dilbert, and Mr. Adams’ blog and it’s a shame this animosity exists. It’s possible I give him too much credit, but I find Scott Adams frequently funny, often insightful, and occasionally mind bending. Like the best illusions, what you see is not necessarily what you get.
February 1st, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Could be my three browsers, or Scott Adams’ software, but the root page of his post that Pharygula is now empty. Apparently, someone doesn’t want their words to stand. Too bad, the Internet never forgets.
February 1st, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Scott Adams,
You confuse your own bad reading comprehension and rumor with my opinions which are, for the record, more skeptical than my gullible critics’ views.
I have enjoyed Dilbert. Your opinions are not likely to affect my enjoyment of Dilbert. Now that the topic has come up, I am curious about what your opinions are. Please share. This is a skeptical site and a good place to share, or link to where you might think is a more appropriate location to share your opinions.
As for somebody calling you wacky, all of the best people are.
February 1st, 2009 at 7:12 pm
“Anti-evolution loon” may be a slightly-huge overstatement, but certainly it’s disappointing to read that article from 2005. If anything, Mr. Adams (circa 2005?) might be accused of a certain naivete — I don’t think “ignorance” would be fair, either — re: science vs. stoooooooopid ID’ers/Creationists.
February 1st, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Scott Adams moved his blog to a new host, not reflected in the Pharygula link:
http://dilbert.com/blog/
He’s not trying to hide words he said.
I’ve yet to find a blog where I agree with everything said within, this blog included. I’ve read some of his posts on topics like this, and while I fall much more on the science side of the argument than he, I felt he had a point in saying (paraphrased) that neither scientists nor religious people are dispassionate or without personal interest in their arguments against each other.
February 1st, 2009 at 7:13 pm
oh man, bummer. dilbert always made me feel a little better in my worst jobs, though.
February 1st, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Scott Adams moved his blog to a new host, not reflected in the Pharygula link:
(post with link held for moderation)
He’s not trying to hide words he said.
I’ve yet to find a blog where I agree with everything said within, this blog included. I’ve read some of his posts on topics like this, and while I fall much more on the science side of the argument than he, I felt he had a point in saying (paraphrased) that neither scientists nor religious people are dispassionate or without personal interest in their arguments against each other.
February 1st, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Great. Now I don’t have to feel guilty about not liking Dilbert.
February 1st, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Huh – where did the comment on Scott Adams come from? I never liked Charles Schulz as a person but I don’t think he let his own beliefs influence Peanuts so much, so I enjoyed ‘Peanuts’ even though I disliked its creator. I don’t see any point in disparaging a cartoon because you don’t like the author, or any point in making snide remarks about an author when you point out a cartoon for some other reason.
February 1st, 2009 at 8:48 pm
He got the beard right in the TV show as the “Amazing Rudolph” (at least Alice is a skeptic). Sadly, he gets thrown into the black hole at the end, by Wally’s cult…
Still, I’m with MadScientist; sometimes you have to separate. I like Dilbert, but disagree with his loonier views. Just as I love The Pretenders, but can’t abide Chrissy’s PETA & vegan hysteria.
Sometimes a blind eye comes in handy, if only to preserve yer sanity…
February 1st, 2009 at 10:10 pm
I tend to agree with MadScientist and Grego. You have to separate the person from their work. John Wayne was a knee-jerk conservative, yet, I like most of his movies. John Travolta is a complete scientologist nutcase, and he has managed to do some good work in movies. Most celebs can be total jerks, yet when they perform, their personal opinions from their work.
Sometimes they fail to keep their lives and work separate. Travolta and “Battlefield Earth,” as well as Mel Gibson and the “Texas Jesus Massacre” come to mind.
Johnny Hart was a young earth creationist, yet his BC comic strip managed to be mostly harmless–until he began evangelizing in it during his later years. When Adams falls off into the deep end and starts preaching Jebus Saves in Dilbert then we’ll have something to complain about.
BTW, why dredge up a three-year-old article and a 16-year-old cartoon at this late date?
February 1st, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Phil probably just found out about the comic.
February 1st, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Yeah, seeing anti-skeptic stuff in Dilbert really soured me on it. (And it wasn’t this particular strip, which I hadn’t seen, nor this character.) But that was a long time ago. Why now, indeed?
February 1st, 2009 at 11:08 pm
P.S. I’m not complaining, just wondering.
February 1st, 2009 at 11:25 pm
@ Dave Hall :
.. as well as Mel Gibson and the “Texas Jesus Massacre” come to mind.
Texas Jesus Masacre? Never heard of that one! Sounds funny!
February 1st, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Glen Davidson: and the non-rationally produced (fitting non-teleological evolutionary predictions almost down to every last detail) complexity found in living organisms.
(emphasis mine)Could you give me a few examples of those? I realize this is off-topic; if you have a link/cite that supports, especially, the ‘non-telic’ aspect of the prediction(s), I’d appreciate it. Thanks.
February 1st, 2009 at 11:27 pm
As TheBlackCat points out, I just found out about the comic. I thought the series was funny, in fact, and have no problem separating the comic from the creator. Unless it’s like BC, where Hart purposely put his beliefs into the comic.
February 1st, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Too bad Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, is an anti-evolution loon!
Doe sit seem toanyone lese like this is an ad hominam attack on Scott Adams purely because he and the BA disagree on one issue?
Perhaps, dare I suggest it here, being anti-evolution in itself does NOT make one a “loon”?
Perhaps we should look again at the notion of ‘paradigm change’ and accept that views that the mainstream today perceives as ‘lunatic’ when held by some minority of people thinking about any given issue could one day be the new generally held paradigm consensus.
I do NOT believe anyone is crazy or stupid just because they disagree with me.
Does Phil? Do the evolutionists? Do the atheists?
Being skeptical about everything should lead to skeptical treatment of the value of everything – including atheism, skepticism and the scientific method and their limitations themselves.
Is this not reasonable?
February 1st, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Correction for typos :
“Too bad Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, is an anti-evolution loon!” Wrote the Bad Astronomer.
Does it seem to anyone else like this is an ad hominam attack on Scott Adams purely because he and the BA disagree on one issue?
BTW. I’m just raising this point as something worth considering. Please respect the freedom of others to hold differing views even ones you think are crazy. I agree entirely with Voltaire’s statement :
“I disagree with what you say but will fight to the death for your freedom to say it.”
February 1st, 2009 at 11:47 pm
@Grego : “Sometimes a blind eye comes in handy, if only to preserve yer sanity…”
Yeah but at what cost? It ruins you’re depth perception!
& makes you one-eyed …
Not that it did cyclops alien Leela from Futurama much harm tho’ so maybe ..
February 1st, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Oops on Leela – mutant not alien cyclops. Whatever.
February 2nd, 2009 at 12:37 am
Then Again,
Galileo fallacy. As this blogger’s friend put it, “The fact that everyone disagrees with you does not make you Galileo.”
It’s not because they disagree, it’s because they deny reality in the most ludicrous ways. (Not talking about Adams here, I don’t know about him much.) Evolution is not our opinion. Like Lewis Black put it, “evolution is a major thread, in the larger tapestry, that I like to call: REALITY!”
February 2nd, 2009 at 12:46 am
@Then Again, it is crazy to hold certain beliefs when the preponderance of evidence points the other way.
February 2nd, 2009 at 1:46 am
I suggest that people go read all the blog posts that Scott Adams have made and make up your own mind before jumping to any conclusions.
February 2nd, 2009 at 1:48 am
What I object to is Phil pointing out the Dilbert cartoon on the one hand and in a non-sequitur calling Scott Adams an “anti-evolution loon”. I hope the Bad Astronomer isn’t turning into a Bad Blogger. If the BA wants to go through a Scott Adams post on some subject or other and thoroughly trash it, that’s fine – in fact, fantastic. Calling Adams a loon and pointing to an old PZ blog with outdated links just doesn’t make any sense – to me it’s like the catholic church calling Galileo a heretic – nothing but silly names with nothing to contribute to thought.
February 2nd, 2009 at 2:18 am
Could the wannabe logicians and latinists please look up the meaning of “ad hominam” (sic!) and “non sequitur”? In the immortal words of Indigo Montoya: I do not think it means what you think it means…
February 2nd, 2009 at 2:37 am
OK, how about “Guy who frequently takes time to comment on sciencey things without really understanding them, sometimes making himself look like a chump in the process” instead of “loon”.
February 2nd, 2009 at 2:42 am
Pieter Kok
Could the wannabe logicians and latinists please look up the meaning of “ad hominam” (sic!) and “non sequitur”? In the immortal words of Indigo Montoya: I do not think it means what you think it means…
I have two words for you, Pieter. “cave canem”
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:04 am
@Pieter: “non sequitur” means exactly what I think it means – what do *you* think it means? By the way, if you’re referring to a character from Princess Bride, the name is Inigo Montoya, not “Indigo” – and that ‘n’ in Inigo should have a squiggly line above it (~) but my keyboard is diacritically challenged. Then again english has discarded the diacritical marks; after all, how can anyone possibly confuse “wind” with “wind”.
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:18 am
“BTW, why dredge up a three-year-old article and a 16-year-old cartoon at this late date?”
Because Scott Adams’s work is still relevent. Duh.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:22 am
Did your mother never teach you manners Phil?
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:28 am
Unfortunately, I found out long ago that Scott Adams was, to put it mildly, decidedly non-skeptical — though he thinks he’s even more skeptical than the skeptics. Back when his 1997 book, “The Dilbert Future,” came out, I wrote up a review for the skeptics group of which I was then chairman, the Rational Examination Association of Lincoln Land (REALL — located in Central Illinois). You can read it here: http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v05/n10/cartoon-metaphysics.html .
You can also read Scott Adams’ reply and my response to it here:http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v05/n12/index.html .
At about the same time we were having this exchange, he published a series of strips making fun of skeptics. It was directed at skeptics throughout the U.S. who had pointed out similar problems with this book chapter.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:29 am
The unfortunate part about this whole thing is that Scott Adams isn’t anti-evolution at all.
I happen to follow both this blog and the Dilbert blog, and have for some time. I can say that you BA are straight up wrong on your assessment of Scott’s position. In fact after he wrote the blog that PZ mentions, there was a followup that explained the whole purpose. Then Scott Adam’s even blogged about how some of the bloggers (PZ included) had misread the posting etc. Quite funny now in hindsight that it’s being brought up again, and it’s still being misread and misinterpreted.
Scott Adams would never blog about what he really believes, not that explicitly. The blog that PZ was quoting was more a display of the philosophical positions that people take, and how they come to their conclusions based on evidence, and or lack thereof. Interestingly enough, PZ’s reaction to that particular posting on the dilbert blog is a display of exactly what the post was really about.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:57 am
@Bein’Silly
Texas Jesus Masacre? Never heard of that one! Sounds funny!
Oh yes. It’s funny the way they make that rascal Pontius Pilate into a tragic hero. And in a brief pause from turning Jesus into hamburger, there’s the hilarious flashback scene where Jesus invents the modern dining table and chair set, and his mother Mary walks away waiving her hands in them air and says something like “This will never catch on.” If you haven’t seen the movie, I’m not making that up. That is an actual scene meant to serve as a bit of comic relief.
February 2nd, 2009 at 6:35 am
I humbly yield to the correct spelling of Inigo Montoya. However, there is no non sequitur in Phil’s post (nor argumenta ad hominem), which is made explicitly clear from his follow up: “Irony!”
José:
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:01 am
I never knew that about Scott Adams, and I wish I still didn’t know it. Hey Phil, thanks for making the rest of my day suck!
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:03 am
Out! Out! You demons of stupidity!
.
.
.
Hey, somebody had to say it in the comments..
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:08 am
I think that Scott says quite a lot of stuff in his books and his blogs but, as he has commented here and elsewhere, whether he believes himself what he writes is a different matter.
I see many instances of writing in his blogs that is obviously just there to provoke a reaction. And most of the time it works. He is quite a fan of “thought experiments” that come to extremely illogical conclusions (and are sometimes quite funny). In either case I wouldn’t take his writings seriously, and I’m pretty sure neither does he.
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:05 am
Phil wrote:
Well, this little gem of Adams’s was featured on Uncommon Descent.
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:57 am
False memories, believing strangers with no credibility, unsupported assumptions, misinterpreting data …it’s all here.
I consider Evolution to be a scientific fact. If you believe something else about me you might want to ask yourself how you became so gullible.
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:59 am
How come BA doesn’t “pick on” Bill Maher, a for real, DOCUMENTED, anti-vaxx loon?
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:08 am
Scott, perhaps you should ask yourself how you came to be so misunderstood. Maybe your presentation lacks a little clarity.
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:46 am
“Scott, perhaps you should ask yourself how you came to be so misunderstood. Maybe your presentation lacks a little clarity.”
Having loosely followed Scott Adams throughout my technical career, I gotta say, I think he’s doing a great job of yanking your chains. That’s pretty much what he does. I haven’t read every one of Mr. Adams’ blogs, so perhaps my own chain has been yanked here. But at the very least, consider that the”thought experiment” referenced above is probably in full progress right now on this blog. Phil, consider this before immediately forming opinions on the man, especially since admittedly, you are new to the Scott Adams universe.
Mr. Adams, for the record, your Dilbert comic ceased to be funny a long time ago. I thought it was funny until I realized it was way too true to be amusing. Not that this is a bad thing. It’s just that sometimes, the truth just plain hurts, however it is presented. [I'm talking about his comic strip here, people, NOT any 'argument' for or against Evolution which I covered in the first paragraph.]
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:54 am
Smile, I think you just got “Adamized”!!
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:41 am
So what exactly is the great joke that Adams has perpetrated here? “Ah, you thought I was being an idiot, but I was only PRETENDING to be an idiot! But you went ahead and believed it based on my own statements, instead of using your mind-reading powers to ascertain that I was only pretending! Ha, ha, who’s the idiot now?”
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:48 am
Irony: in Pharyngula, the creationist noise is outweighed by political noise, as a putatively educated audience fails repeatedly to use the same analytical logic on their political views that they would on a whelk in a supernova.
Yeah, all that cynicism from some and cautious optimism from the others, resting on a foundation of empirical experience and pragmatism. That is truly the hallmark of an unexamined political viewpoint.
Anyway, I’ll leave you to your hobby of insulting Pharyngula regulars on other blogs.
February 2nd, 2009 at 12:04 pm
You say that as if it’s a good thing…
February 2nd, 2009 at 1:32 pm
@Al:
“Having loosely followed Scott Adams throughout my technical career, I gotta say, I think he’s doing a great job of yanking your chains. That’s pretty much what he does.”
“You say that as if it’s a good thing…”
Not necessarily a good or bad thing. It’s just what he does [from what I have loosely observerd of him]. Personally, I find it somewhat funny but annoying when there seems to be little point to it other than ruffling feathers just to get them ruffled. But it is what it is – and my point is, judging him by what he appears to be what he’s could be nothing more than falling into his trap. He seems to like proving people gullible. Arguing with him = gullible [in his words]. Thus, before anyone gets all fired up about it, think about the fact that this is exactly what he’s trying to create, regardless of whether or not he actually believes it. [And this refers to his little ID/creationist ploys - not to the Dilbert comic strip. As I said before, Dilbert seems a little too true for comfort.]
February 2nd, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Yeah, too bad. Maybe he should change the evidence to fit the theory like the other loons do. You know like Lucy, Entropy, Mutation, Macroevolution, lack of the millions of transitional fossils (Darwin’s words), etc. In research, we do not call this science, we call this, special pleading. Sometimes, I think this site should be called Phil’s Chariots of the Gods. I miss good science.
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:08 pm
@Screechy Monkey:
So what exactly is the great joke that Adams has perpetrated here?
That he manages to get a rise out of people by posting completely ridiculous and often contradictory things. He’s basically a professional troll.
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:10 pm
In other words, he lives to violate Wil’s 1st law…
Cause that’s pretty much what he’s doing.
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Radwaste Says:
“BTW, why dredge up a three-year-old article and a 16-year-old cartoon at this late date?”
“Because Scott Adams’s work is still relevent. Duh.”
“Duh” indeed. I suspect it was a slow day . Nothing happening in real astronomy news. No new anti-vax issues , moon hoaxers are quiet. Nothing much on the woo front. Gotta find something to blog about.
I am beginning to suspect that we are witnessing the rise of (for lack of a better term) Knee Jerk Skepticism.
A few weeks ago, “Marketplace” a business oriented program on PRI ran a very tongue-in-cheek piece on maybe using astrology to predict economic trends, as all the other ways seem just as ineffective.
Almost before you could say “Bull shirt,” seemingly half the readers of this blog were having kittens over how NPR was promoting WOO on the air. This led to a call to complain in the “Marketplace” website. And a goodly number of clear-thinking, skeptics immediately grabbed their pitchforks and torches.
But then there was nothing wrong with doing a guest shot on Coast To Coast AM, the biggest den of woo on the air.
We are also seeing a siege mentality forming here. We are surrounded by anti-vaxxers and entire states such as Texas and Louisiana are doomed because a minority of idiots is trying to push ID in school curricula.
Now we have some people upset because they used to like Dilbert before they “knew” Scott Adams is an “anti-evolution loon.” Others are using the “news” to justify their attitudes that they never liked Dilbert anyway. Yeah, it’s hip to oppose anything popular as somehow beneath one.
As far as violators of Wil’s first law: Take a peek in the mirror if you want to see one in person.
I’m off to find a full time astronomy blog–see you in the funny papers.
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Dilbert hasn’t been funny in ages. And if this “thought experiment” stuff is true, then yay, glorified trolling.
And, I’ll put two bucks on the fact that Dave Hall shows up again in less than two months to complain about something else, but I’m flat broke.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:16 pm
“Yeah, all that cynicism from some and cautious optimism from the others, resting on a foundation of empirical experience and pragmatism. That is truly the hallmark of an unexamined political viewpoint.
Anyway, I’ll leave you to your hobby of insulting Pharyngula regulars on other blogs.”
Not a hobby, and not unique to PZ’s people. Sadly, No! and a bunch of others do the same thing. Some people are proud of their opinion and seek confirmation in the company of others. That’s fallacious: it’s the Appeal to Popularity. We’re not automatically superior to others just because we have expertise in one field or know someone who is and vicariously gain wht we think is authority. And while you have describe maybe ten people, the rest – the hundreds who post, “Ditto!” style – are just thrilled with hasty opinions based on unfounded optimism, while the exact same mechanism that put us in our current political and economic mess is still operating.
“Regulars” are never a problem. Ideas are, and they do not become more or less ludicrous because of the identity of their advocate or the company they keep.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:19 pm
@ Alex Black: “That he manages to get a rise out of people by posting completely ridiculous and often contradictory things. ”
The problem is, that is what real creationists and IDers do as well. So how are we supposed to tell the difference between a real creationist and a fake one? The answer: we can’t. Heck, even the creationists themselves can’t seem to tell.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:28 pm
@ Jimmy Ray: #
“You know like Lucy”
What about her? It is an excellent, very complete speciimen of a transitional fossil.
“Entropy”
Ah yes, the only “evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics” canard. Do me a favor, Jim. Go outside on a clear day. See that big, yellow, glowing ball up there? That’s the sun. It means Earth is not a closed system, and thus entropy (which is NOT the same thing as disorder) can and does increase.
Anybody who uses this argument instantly shows two things. One, they know absolutely nothing about science. This is some of the most basic stuff out there. Two, they can’t use common sense (if entropy can’t increase, how do crystals form?). Three, they have not bothered to spend even one second reading non-creationist material, since that is invariably the first thing that comes up because it is such a silly argument but such a common argument.
“Mutation”
Have to be a bit more specific here.
“Macroevolution”
…has been directly observed. Moving on.
“lack of the millions of transitional fossils (Darwin’s words)”
You do realize Darwin lived a century and a half ago, right? We have made more than a little bit of progress in paleontology since then. Quoting anybody from that long ago as though it had any weight regarding the current state of the evidence is stretching it just a bit. It is like using Galileo’s writings to prove we really don’t know anything about the moons of Jupiter. He didn’t know anything about the moons, but we have learned a bit since then.
“Sometimes, I think this site should be called Phil’s Chariots of the Gods. I miss good science.”
That’s because you haven’t bothered looking at any.
@ Alex Black: See, this is exactly what I am talking about.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:36 pm
@David Bloomberg:
Thanks for the link. I wish the review had a little more specifics about what’s wrong with the book. Adams’ response reminds me of fundamentalist preachers and their ‘arguments’ – he’s certainly not good at expressing ideas (or making valid arguments). Incidentally, Adams’ response was a textbook case of how not to reason and Steven Novella had posted something on that recently:
http://skepticblog.org/2009/02/02/how-not-to-argue/
I’ll have to dig up my ‘Dilbert Future’ – I really can’t remember the last chapter but I wouldn’t be surprised if it put me off and I threw the book aside and forgot about it. I wonder who wrote in to praise that ‘last chapter’ – perhaps the ghost of George McReady Price?
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:02 am
@ José on “Texas Jesus Masacre”?
“Oh yes. It’s funny the way they make that rascal Pontius Pilate into a tragic hero. And in a brief pause from turning Jesus into hamburger, .. ”
Wow! They turn Jesus into a hamburger! Neat!
Does the Virginmray’s face appear on hisgrilled cheese or top of the bun? How does he get out of that one? Does somebody eat Him? If so it’d taste nicer than wafers wouldn’t it?
And who applies the Chainsaw to Pilate?
Yeah from the sounds of it, quite a good satire – maybe equal to ‘Dogma’ with Jesus’ black brother and God on life support needing his plug pulled! Although surely not as good as Monty Python’s ‘Life of Brian’. Nothing can be as good as ‘Life of Brian’ can it? Hmm.. Jose, I think might actually
Which shelf do I look for it in the video shop – comedy? B-grade horror? Remainders? 
*want* to see that ‘Texas Jesus massacre’ one now! You’ve sold me on it.
“there’s the hilarious flashback scene where Jesus invents the modern dining table and chair set, and his mother Mary walks away waiving her hands in them air and says something like “This will never catch on.” If you haven’t seen the movie, I’m not making that up. That is an actual scene meant to serve as a bit of comic relief.”
Ha ha.. hurrr ..
I thought the whole thing was meant to be a comedy though yeah?
Thinking of which & some of the comments – is it worth posing the question :
Are we all losing our sense of humour here?
Laughing at woo, saying “Ridikulous” to the Boggle is probably one of the best strategies us reality-based folks have. Don’t know if that’s what Scott Adams is up to ..
.. Just thought we could look at taking things a little less than plain dead earnest, or zealous over-reaction? Not that the Creationism-IDiots are really all that funny but, hey, better to laugh than cry yes?
And do the words ‘Poes law’ and something about satire /parody / reality being indistinguishable ring any bells?
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:07 am
@ The Black Cat :
It is like using Galileo’s writings to prove we really don’t know anything about the moons of Jupiter. He didn’t know anything about the moons, but we have learned a bit since then.
Galileo? What you mean the spaceprobe that flew by in the 1990’s-00s?
I thought that did actually tell us a lot about the Jovian moons?
Oh and isn’t a ship (and by extension spaceprobe) usually a ’she’ not a ‘he’ by tradition?
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:12 am
Eck! I’m very overtired again .. Flew by no.
Orbited for many years then deliberatley fell into and became part of is what I meant!
Wonder if Galileo’s vapourised mortal remains have reached the diamond at the heart of the Jovian core yet? (The spacecraft not the Renaissance hero that is.)
PS. Yes, I know I’m getting my science from SpaceOdyssey : 2010′ & Arthur C. Clarke’s fiction – there probably ain’t really a diamond down there although ..
February 3rd, 2009 at 5:46 am
Saying he’s an anti-evolution loon is incorrect. The man is an anti-everything loon, and his reputation is built on poking fun at ‘The Establishment’ which in this case is the scientific orthodoxy.
This is just another example of how the DI have created the public perception of being a ‘persecuted underdog’ while at the same time claiming to be representative of the majority viewpoint.
February 3rd, 2009 at 5:49 am
And hey! in the next strip along, he recomends dropping TV’s on tele-evangalists.
February 3rd, 2009 at 5:59 am
And I’ve read ‘The Dilbert Future’ and yes the last chapter is loopy, but no-one was going to read it and pick up a gun, blow up a building or vote conservative.
I can remember when CFC’s were safe, Global warming was a fringe theory, and the universe was either expanding, contracting or ‘continuously created’.
So the man can be forgiven for assuming that what we ‘know’ today will be completly wrong tommorrow.
February 3rd, 2009 at 7:07 am
I have to agree with James on this one – Adams will say almost *anything* that goes against the flow, whether or not he believes it (and he’s said so multiple times on his blog – “don’t think you know what I believe from reading this blog”).
“Dance, Monkey, Dance”. Sorry Phil, but you got trolled by Adams himself, and you bit.
February 3rd, 2009 at 7:57 am
Adams will say almost *anything* that goes against the flow, whether or not he believes it (and he’s said so multiple times on his blog – “don’t think you know what I believe from reading this blog”)
Then why write anything? Seems a bit smart alecky to me.
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:08 am
I do respect your opinion to believe in evolution. I do not understand your reasoning and I would honestly love to know. Do you believe it because your read about it and do not want to go against the norm or is there good research leading to the conclusion that evolution is real. I just have not found solid proof. I mentioned Lucy because ever since australopithecines was proven primate, evolutionist have been looking for something else and found Lucy. Now Lucy presents a few problems. Things like “her” being found from 200ft to one mile of the skull. But the angles of the upper leg and lower leg are 15 degrees which is the same as…dramatic pause, australopithecines. The worst part of this story is that when Dr. Johnson presented his findings in Kansas City in 1987 not a single evolutionist questioned him. The ID crowd did and of course, he followed the evolutionist handbook to questioning, he got mad, called names and walked off. Nice. I also mentioned special pleading…
I am always open to evidence and I ignore folks that follow the normal get mad, call names play book. In my experience, folks get mad when they defend something they are uncomfortable challenging. I am open to challenges to God and creation. bring it! I want to know also. Believers have made some of the biggest contributions to science. Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Pasteur, Faraday, Copernicus, Maxwell, Heisenburg, Harvey, Brahe, Plank, etc. All believers in God.
Evolutionist have folks like; Laplace, Hawking, Mayr, Kinsey, Skinner, Wundt. Compare the accomplishments. Kids in school read about the accomplishments of scientist whose base was a belief in God to advance science. Then they turn the page and read about evolution. Doesn’t that seem odd to anyone or is it just me? That seems like reading about the study of automotive history then turn the page and read about teleportation. Honestly, I am trying to pursue the truth. I do not believe in evolution because the argument does not seem to hold up under questioning. Creation works because the validity of the Bible is solid, proven and has held up to questioning for years.
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:39 am
Jimmy Ray, assuming you’re not trolling, Australopithecus is a hominid. Lucy is an Australopithecus. I think you should do some reading on australopithecines that isn’t from ID propaganda.
I think your list of “believers” is inaccurate too. In particular Einstein. He wasn’t a believer and he said, “I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
Some of the others may or may not have been believers either and if you got Einstein’s belief wrong who knows what else you got wrong. Who cares if a scientist is religious anyway. Being a good scientist has nothing to do with believing in god or not.
Frankly mate, I think you’re making stuff up. A few citations to back up your claims would be appreciated.
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:21 am
@Jimmy Ray
In my experience, folks get mad when they defend something they are uncomfortable challenging.
Folks get mad when debating creationists because it generally doesn’t matter how good evidence is. It’s exasperation, not discomfort. For instance, we now have thousands of separate fossils that detail the transition from a chimp-like ancestor to modern hominins. Sure there are still gaps, but over time they’re getting filled in, just as evolution would predict.
The fact that some scientific giants you point to believed in god (not all of those you listed as believing in god actually did) is irrelevant. Just like it’s not relevant whether or not my car mechanic believes in god. It’s not a contest.
I do not believe in evolution because the argument does not seem to hold up under questioning.
What specifically don’t you think holds up?
Creation works because the validity of the Bible is solid, proven and has held up to questioning for years
No it doesn’t. And due to it’s internal inconstancies, we don’t even need to look outside the Bible to know this.
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:23 am
The research supporting evolution is not good, it is overwhelming. That is why essentially every scientist on the planet accepts it.
I have no idea what this even means. Of course Australopithecus is a primate, we are primates too. That is not a surprise. Humans are primates, chimpanzees are primates, the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees were primates, and all the transitional forms in between that species and humans were primates.
This is flat-out wrong. Lucy was found in a small area. However, several other fossils of the same species were found further away, which appears to have confused some creationists (and others don’t seem to bother to check). Lucy was merely the most complete fossil found at the site. Other fossils of the same species have been found at other sites as well.
Really? That is good considering Lucy was an Australopithecus, specifically Australopithecus afarensis.
Maybe that is because he had found the fossils in the 70’s and presented his findings around then. He even wrote a book on it in 1981. The discussions were long over and Lucy’s status as a member of the human family was well-established. If they were using the sorts of lies and misconceptions you are using I could imagine him getting upset.
No, evolution has held up over the most stringent questions over the last 150 years. It is the most well-supported scientific theory ever. Creationism is known to be totally and utterly wrong, conflicting not only with what we know about evolution but also conflicting with absolutely everything else we know about the universe.
I suggest you read this to get a very small overview of the massive amount of evidence supporting evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:39 am
Rob R. @ Feb, 1, 11:20pm, twice yesterday I tried responding to your request, and nothing posted. I saved the second, and I’m taking out the “http” in each address so that they don’t link, in case it was the links keeping it from posting. So here’s is the last response that didn’t get through:
Well I tried to put in a bunch of links previously, but for whatever reason it didn’t work. I’ll try once more.
First, I’ll point out that all of evolutionary theory’s predictions are “non-telic”. One of my favorites is that evolution predicts that vertebrate wings have to come from previous structures suited to modification into wings, which in practical terms means legs. Hence, all three vertebrate wings which evolved are modified forelimbs of their previous ancestors, and, of course, none at all consist of designs taken from unrelated organisms. This example crops up in some of the following links.
Here’s one in which I really listed a lot of the lack of expected “design” features in life:
behefails.wordpress.com/2008/08/25/the-edge-of-evolution/#A
In the following, I discussed both the overlap, and where overlap is lacking, between what intelligence can do, and what evolution, does:
behefails.wordpress.com/2008/12/02/why-is-there-substantial-overlap-between-design-results-and-evolutionary-results/
Below is a discussion of how evolution explains “poor design” through its constraints, which is to say, that it has no ability to act rationally, unlike known intelligence:
behefails.wordpress.com/2008/10/23/ids-problem-is-not-particularly-poor-design-but-the-evident-cause-of-poor-design/
Next is a link discussing what Behe rightly states is a way of distinguishing design from non-teleological evolution. Why he brought up the fact that accepted evolutionary theory allows for only “physical precursors,” while design would be expected to have “conceptual precursors,” I’ll never know, because life is precisely lacking in the latter, and made up of the former. Here’s the link:
behefails.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/darwins-black-box/#5
And for just a general link where these things are discussed, in addition to other factors, see here:
behefails.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/darwins-black-box/
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
February 4th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Annnnnd…. we’ve been trolled
February 7th, 2009 at 11:38 am
No discussion of evolution is complete without viewing this site.