We went round and round on this well over a year ago. Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame, wrote a shallow and ignorant argument that sort of shilly-shallied over a pro-creationist argument; I pointed out how stupid his reasoning was. The response was insane; criticize Adams, and his horde of Dilbert fans will descend on you like a cloud of pea-brained locusts. Adams took a stab at the subject again, proposing that at least we ought to teach it as an alternative to evolution, an old and tiresome argument that I thoroughly despise. Basically, Adams just outed himself as a feeble hack making tepid arguments that only a creationist could believe.
Oh, and the most common lame defense: Scott Adams shouldn’t ever be taken seriously, because he’s always just joking to get a rise out of people. That would be acceptable, if ever he’d said anything intelligent on the subject, if his whole argument wasn’t based on common creationist canards, and if his fanbase weren’t taking his every word so damned seriously, as if he’d given them some deep insight.
That’s the history. I hadn’t read the Dilbert blog in ages, so I don’t know if Adams has since continued his wishy-washy creationism. Now I see on OmniBrain that yes, Scott Adams has written another post on intelligent design, and yes, if anything, Scott Adams has become even more stupid in the intervening months Here’s his key argument for assigning intelligence to the universe.
I take the practical approach — that something is intelligent if it unambiguously performs tasks that require intelligence. Writing Moby Dick required intelligence. The Big Bang wrote Moby Dick. Therefore, the Big Bang is intelligent, and you and I are created by that same intelligence. Therefore, we are created by an intelligent entity.
It’s a wee bit circular, don’t you think? He’s defining intelligence by assuming that the only process that can create intelligence is driven by intelligence; I’d simply rebut him by challenging his assumption, and say that the process that created the being who wrote Moby Dick did not require intelligent guidance (as we already know—the processes that drive evolution do not require active intervention by any intelligent agent), therefore there is no reason to call a prior process like the Big Bang “intelligent”. He’s also managed to put together an argument for an intelligent designer that requires us to conclude that everything in the universe is intelligent: phosphorylation is intelligent, sperm are intelligent, carrots are intelligent, bacteria are intelligent, interstellar dust is intelligent. I suspect that there’s a self-serving motive involved—he had to really reach to come up with a definition that would allow him to claim that Scott Adams is intelligent.
It’s nice to see that one constant on the internet is that Scott Adams is still a babbling idiot. If any of his defenders want to claim that “hey, he’s just being funny!” that’s fine, as long as you’re willing to admit that his chosen style of humor is to pretend to be a colossal boob…and that he’s suckered many of his readers into thinking that his intentionally absurd ideas are brilliant.
So predictable…
Here’s a lesson for you: criticize Scott Adams, and you will receive a deluge of Dilbonian hate mail. Virtually all of it is saying exactly the same thing: “You failed the humor test”; “Adams was being ironic”; “Adams isn’t a creationist, he’s pulling your chain”. Part of it is taking a different, overtly creationist tack: “The Big Bang didn’t happen, so you ought to be able to tell it’s a joke”; “You professors don’t understand anything”; and then there are the long-winded discourses on why Adams is exactly right, and that he has seen the mind of God, and his argument is irrefutable.
Listen, Dilbonians: you can stop telling me I have no sense of humor. I know it already. I also know that Scott Adams has a piss-poor sense of humor, too. I’d be more inclined to believe that he was mocking creationist thinking if a) everything he has written on evolution, creation, and science hadn’t had exactly the same tone and advanced the same point of view, which seems to be, basically, that Scott Adams knows better than every scientist on the planet, and b) his fans were a little less enthusiastic in supporting every turd of faux-wisdom that drips from his mouth. Read the comments; his readers aren’t treating this as a hilarious send-up of religious thinking. Maybe Adams is a true cynic who has purposely cultivated a collection of acolytes who are stupid enough to believe the amazingly stupid things he writes, but I don’t think that is an accomplishment that would insulate him from criticism.
Oh, and those of you complaining that Adams is not a creationist: look up David Berlinski. There is a lot in common there: the same supercilious and inflated sense of intellectual self-worth, the same mocking tone, the same knee-jerk rejection of anyone else’s expertise, as if the fact that some people know much more in some discipline than he does is a personal insult. He’s an anti-science hack who probably also rejects authorities on the creationist side because they do not defer to his superior intelligence, either.
How can you say that necessity is purposeless? I would say that “don’t be eaten or otherwise die before you can reproduce” is just about the opposite of purposelessness.
Scott Adams is an atheist. How can he also be a Creationist??
Sigh…yes..I know you can show me why a caterpillar is a stage in the development of a butterfly. I am asking what were the evolutionary forces that caused such a life-cycle. If everything evolved for a reason – for reasons of adaptation to environment, for instance – WHY did a butterfly evolve in the first place? Do you know for certain? CAN you know for certain? Or is everything simply a “plausible” explanation? Could there have been caterpillars that never developed into a butterfly or moth at all? That simply lived and died as what we would call “caterpillars”?
I don’t disbelieve “evolution”…I do, however, disbelieve the certainty displayed by its proponents.
Yes, there are transitional links between species. The more I read about it, the more it is obvious…however, you cannot extrapolate what you know of one species and use it to explain others without the same kind of empirical evidence.
You may be right in all of your beliefs, but until you can be 100% certain, with empirical evidence, you can never know. So, arguing from a position of absolute certainty on ALL issues of evolutionary theory is…as I have mentioned before…based on faith.
And as we have seen recently with religions, and on this forum, people cannot stand when their beliefs are questioned.
If necessity is another word for “natural selection,” it has to be purposeless. Any good evolutionist knows that. Pure Darwinian evolution does not allow for any foresight in the forces of nature.
I took a gander on Google and came up with some interesting insights on Darwinian epistemology. Here’s one quote from Nancy Pearcey (and don’t damn the logic due to the source): “If humans are products of Darwinian natural selection, that obviously includes the human brain–which in turn means all our beliefs and values are products of evolutionary forces: Ideas arise in the human brain by chance, just like Darwin’s chance variations in nature; and the ones that stick around to become firm beliefs and convictions are those that give an advantage in the struggle for survival. This view of knowledge came to be called pragmatism (truth is what works) or instrumentalism (ideas are merely tools for survival).”
The above seems to be the argument you’re making. However, if you probe a little further into this logic, you arrive at my original question: If all ideas are products of evolution (blind chance and necessity) and thus not really true but only useful for survival (pragmatic), then evolution itself is not true either but merely a strategy for coping with our environment. Therefore, why are Darwinists so bent on investing it with any sense of ultimate truth?
Here’s another quote from Pearcey that summarizes my thoughts nicely: “If evolution is true, then it is not true, but only useful. This kind of internal contradiction is fatal, for a theory that asserts something and denies it at the same time is simply nonsense. In short, naturalistic evolution is self-refuting.”
Can you see a way out of this conundrum?
This is nothing more than empty wordplay. The “necessity” part of “chance and necessity” is, precisely, natural selection- selection of organisms better adapted than others in the population to thrive in their environment. That’s quite sufficient “purpose” to make sense of evolutionary history. You’re clearly bothered by the lack of some ultimate teleology but that’s your problem, not nature’s. (Our minds, ironically, may wired to detect “purpose” where none exists because a purpose-detection module is very valuable for dealing with other people and other animals.)
There is no “conundrum”, only self-inflicted blindness on the part of people who refuse to understand.
What does truth have to do with evolution?
Try if evolution is fact… rather than true. The human mind is a result of evolution.
Human ideas are the result of complex interactions of memories, biology, genetics and education.
Evolution does not equal ideas.
Logical fallacies do not disprove evolution.
“Therefore, why are Darwinists so bent on investing it with any sense of ultimate truth?”
Who are these Darwinists you prate on about?
Secondly, evolutionary biology is the best scientific explanation for the origin of species etc. What has truth got to do with it?
Let’s set the emotions and personal insults aside for a moment, Steve, and stick to the issue at hand.
Can you please address the pragmatism issue I raised above? In particular, I would like you to respond to this statement: “If all ideas are products of evolution (blind chance and necessity) and thus not really true but only useful for survival (pragmatic), then evolution itself is not true either but merely a strategy for coping with our environment. Therefore, why are Darwinists so bent on investing it with any sense of ultimate truth?”
If you can’t respond to this (with an argument rather than assumptions about my inherent need for teleology), can you direct me to someone who can? I’m merely trying to follow Darwinian logic to its logical conclusions here. Are you willing to go there with me? If I’m wrong, I want to know it, not be insulted for my curiosity. I think the very fact that I’m posting here is evidence that I am not suffering from self-inflicted blindness or an unwillingness to understand. Asking questions is usually a sign of an individual’s willingness to learn.
I seem to have struck a nerve here. Steve C., the evolutionists I “prate on about” are none other than the theory’s most strident defenders–Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet.
That said, I’m very puzzled by the rest of your response. I’ve responded to each statement in turn:
1. “What does truth have to do with evolution?” I think we’re in a semantic minefield here. But by “truth” I mean the ultimate substance of reality. Can the theory of evolution help us get at that? It claims to do so, but I’ve shown above how if Darwinian theory is “true,” then the truth can never be known. So to answer your question, truth has everything to do with evolution–or nothing to do with it if Darwinian theory is correct.
2. “Try if evolution is fact… rather than true. The human mind is a result of evolution.” Can you please explain? I think you’re trying to distinguish between the words “truth” and “fact” here, but I get the sense you’re splitting hairs.
3. “Human ideas are the result of complex interactions of memories, biology, genetics and education.” Are you saying human ideas are determined by these interactions or are they merely processed via these interactions? Either way, what is your point here?
4. “Evolution does not equal ideas.” Agreed. But it does start with an idea, and if that idea is illogical, so goes the rest of the show.
5. “Logical fallacies do not disprove evolution.” I’m sorry, but your logic is very weak here. If evolution can’t explain intelligence or rationality–the very tools used to make Darwinian arguments–then I think that logical fallacies do indeed disprove evolution. Try re-phrasing your argument and putting the word “God” in place of “evolution” and see if you still have confidence in your logic.
“Evolution” claims–I could put scare quotes around virtually every word in this sentence, but that would get tiresome–to “get at” (sorry…!) the ultimate substance of reality!
What?!?
Let’s back up one step here: please find for us the quote from any “evolutionist” where any such claim is made.
If you can’t, all you’re airing out here is your own wet undies.
While there might conceivably be some reason for us to pay some attention to your pet counter-theories of “ultimate” existence, those reasons haven’t so far made their appearance.
Give us the quote supporting your “claim” that there is any such evolutionary claim, or give us the reasons why ideas must somehow precede the evolution of the creatures whose brains conceive them, or else totter on off please…
Thanks ever so!
1. What are you blathering about? Evolution has nothing to do with truth, whatever definition you use. That’s like discussing weather and truth. What’s the point?
2. We are here, are we not? This is the result of evolution. All of it including the brain.
3. Ideas are not the result of any truth. And they are not caused by evolution. The brain is the organic vessel for which memories are stored and ideas are created. It is also shaped by genetics, environment and education. An individual’s survival depends on the viablity of that brain as well as the rest of its organs.
4. Is gravity illogical? Just an idea?
5. Your logical fallacy of entangling your “truth” with evolution and the devolopment of the human mind disproves nothing.
First question: How come there are so many Steves around here? Just a point of interest. Perhaps you can offer a Darwinian explanation for that.
Second, Steviepinhead, I’m trying to have a reasoned discussion here, but so far all I’m encountering is bluster rather than actual reasoned responses to my questions. Is this how to you deal with everyone who doesn’t agree with you? If so, no wonder Darwinian theory is having such a difficult time gaining a foothold amongst the masses. It’s not because we’re stupid, ignorant, etc., it’s because every time we ask an honest question we get insulted.
If I do totter off, Stevie, it will be to have a more enlightening discussion elsewhere, not because I’m put off by the sheer brilliance of you and your fellow Steves’ responses. So far I don’t see a single shred of sustainable logic, much less quotes to back up your point of view. So I find it profoundly disingenuous of you to demand that I provide quotes backing up assertions. Nevertheless, I will get get quotes for you, but for now I suggest you read “The Blind Watchmaker,” “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea,” and “The God Delusion.” They should render any effort to get quotes entirely superfluous. If these books aren’t enough evidence of Darwinian triumphalism, I don’t know what is. You have read these books, haven’t you “Steves”?
Kevin Miller is making the same argument and the same mistake that Adams did: assuming that a property that arises from a combination of parts must also be present in each isolated part. Intelligence and behavior and learning and so forth are all excellent examples of properties that arise by the interplay of components—it makes as much sense to infer that intelligence is a property of an individual neuron as it does to say the bargain bin at Radio Shack is a radio.
Steve keeps coming back to his metamorphosis conundrum. It is a valid problem in evolution, and there are some incomplete answers. Basically, though, a larval stage is a feeding stage (or sometimes a dispersal stage), and the adult form is reproductive. Organisms faced selection for two different processes: to eat and grow and gather the energy for reproduction, and to mate and reproduce. Some lineages have resolved the dueling selection pressures problem by partitioning it in two, with an early part of the life history dedicated to one function, and a later part dedicated to the other. When it is split temporally like that, evolution can work on each stage somewhat independently, shaping larvae to be eating machines and adults to be courting and breeding machines.
One other part of the story is that part of the mechanism for optimizing the feeding strategy is to suppress sexual development, setting aside those tissues to wait until a certain healthy size has been reached, and then switching on the development of adult/sexual characters. We humans do that, too; animals that metamorphose, though, have carried it to an extreme.
Where did I claim to be brilliant? Run my screenname past your nimble eyeballs one more time…
You are the one making the claims that are unanchored and floating in the air.
Again, before your discussion can proceed anywhere, YOU need to establish that “evolution” makes anything like the cliams that YOU are making for it.
Do it or don’t. I don’t care. But without having done so, you’re not going to come anywhere close to an “enlightening discussion.” So far, I can’t even tell whether I disagree with you, since you haven’t bothered to ground your claims in consensual reality.
You’ll note I’m not the only one having this difficulty…
PZ:
My childhood and adolescence make so much more sense now!
Steve was a popular name in the late 60’s and 70’s?
We are all not the same Steve… trust me on that one.
Oh, sure you’re not all the same. I’ve given all my zombie cyborg man-cephalopod hybrid minions the name “Steve”, I’ll have you know, and they vary only in their last names: Steve Gomez, Steve Ya-ya, Steve Smallberries, Steve Bigbooté…
Kevin, the books you list (all of which I have read) do not make the claims you say they do, and your questions have been answered repeatedly but you refuse to deal with the answers, choosing instead to keep going on about some sort of ultimate purpose behind it all (something for the existence of which there is no evidence, but only wishful thinking, which ia something we humans are only too good at.) Under the circumstances, it’s you who are simply refusing to engage in the very discussion whose lack you deplore. There’s nothing we can do about that unless you choose to engage us on a reality-based level. And it’s purely your loss (in potential understanding) if you won’t.
And, yes, I’ve read each of the books. I’m quite certain that Dawkins doesn’t set out to explain the origin of the cosmos in either of his outings. Dennett–who is one guy, not “Evolution”–extends a generalized version of the evolutionary process further, but again does not claim to get at the ultimate structure of reality.
Pointing someone on an internet debate to three whole books without page references, quotes, etc., accomplishes essentially zero for your “enlightened discussion.” In case you’d actually care to understand why it is that you’re failing to have one…
PZ: I’m actually saying the exact opposite of what you’re asserting here. I’m not arguing that neurons are as intelligent as the brains they comprise. I’m saying that if the processes that created the brain are blind and purposeless, how could the brain be anything more than that? And, by extension, how could the thoughts produced by that brain be trustworthy? And how would we be able to make that determination? And so the regress begins…
What I hear you saying is that just because our brains are produced by blind and purposeless forces does not mean that the thoughts produced by our brains are blind and purposeless as well. Somehow, the interaction of chance and necessity produces a third entity–intelligence–that is more than the sum of its blind and purposeless parts. But isn’t that like saying 2 + 2 = 5? How can the sum be more than its parts?
Therefore, it’s all deterministic How can we have any confidence that are thoughts are giving us real information about the universe rather than mere approximations that ensure our survival?
Steves: Both Dawkins and Dennett assuredly do set out to explain how the universe might have originated via Darwinian processes. And they’re far from the exception. I’d list more examples here, but seeing as you’re bent on holding me up to a standard of evidence you are unwilling to apply to yourself, I’m not going to bother. Your minds have very large “No Trespassing” signs on them, so I’m going to heed the warning and quit wasting my time.
It’s too bad. I really wanted to try to engage you folks as an experiment, so see if anyone was sincerely interested in a reasoned discussion/debate on this topic. So far, my experiment has proven to be a colossal failure. So I will just have to assume that you have no answer to my questions other than raised hackles. Perhaps I’ll have better luck elsewhere.
You really can’t see how utterly logically fallacious this argument is,even after PZ carefully explained it to you? You need to respond to that explanation rather than continually reposting the same claim, if you genuinely desire to have a discussion.
On your second question- of course our knowledge can only be an approximation of reality, but do you really find it difficult to tell the difference between a good approximation and a bad one? (Is it all the same whether a prey animal looks at a predator and perceives a predator rather than, say, a rock??) Our brains have evolved to be able to produce reasonably good approximations of reality (though with some serious biases that cultural institutions like science have themselves had to be developed to correct for.) If they hadn’t we wouldn’t be here.
That has nothing to do with “ultimate” explanations of “purpose” or origin. My comment stands- you are grossly mischaracterizing what they wrote.
Okay, can’t resist one more post, Steve. You say: “You need to respond to that explanation rather than continually reposting the same claim, if you genuinely desire to have a discussion.” Excuse me, Steve, but I just did respond to PZ’s so-called explanation. First, I pointed out how his explanation displayed a misunderstanding–in fact, a complete reversal–of my argument. Then I asked him how he could deny that his response essentially amounted to arguing that 2 + 2 = 5. Good enough for you?
No, you are saying exactly the same thing. It’s just that your “parts” aren’t neurons, they’re “chance” and “necessity”. This is exactly the revelation of Darwin, echoed by Monod in that catchy phrase: the combination of chance and necessity brings about novelty. New things. New things like viruses and digestive enzymes and chlorophyll and intelligence.
Kevin, your fallacy is also equivalent to saying that living things are made entirely of molecules, so how can organisms have any properties that molecules on their own don’t have? You’re just not understanding this at all, at a very basic logical level. You really need to get that if you want to get anywhere.
I don’t think you would find Dawkins or Dennet claiming the Big Bang is an evolutionary process.
Yes evolution is blind and purposeless… as is the universe. That is an idea that Dawkins and Dennet would agree with. It is cold and uncaring. Genes survive through natural selection, undesired traits fall by the wayside because they make an individual less survivable. Gee, a bigger brain evolving to deal with more complex problems and to develop language deosn’t at all sound like a desired trait. That brain in turn creating abstract ideas or paradoxes does not in turn mean that the process that created it is the same as the ideas it produces.
Why do you wish to conflate this idea with some deep philisophical look inward?
Navel gazing pushed to this extreme seems quite silly.
Call me a hypocrite, but I’m responding again.
PZ, you’ve still got it backwards. I’m not assuming that a property that arises from a combination of parts must also be present in each isolated part. I’m assuming the exact opposite: that the properties present in each isolated part must also be present in whatever arises from a combination of those parts, nothing more and nothing less. That means I’m also assuming that the whole can never be greater than the sum of its parts, that 2 + 2 must always equal 4. That’s true everywhere else I look in the universe. Why not in regard to intelligence? Somehow you’re slipping in a fifth digit here. Can anyone point me to a paper or book that explains how this happens? That would be a nice alternative to simply insulting my intelligence and then falling back onto Darwinist rhetoric.
No, this is flatly and disastrously wrong. A brain, for example, has all sorts of proerties that are not inherent in a disaggregated collection of neurons.
I don’t think we could explain it any clearer….
You just continue to NOT get it.
Evolution is not addition.
Are stars conscious? We are all star stuff as Sagan put it. (roughly)
So sperm + egg = diploid single cell, and can never be anything more?
H2 + O2 = colorless gas, nothing more?
I’m afraid you guys are the ones who are getting it all wrong. You’re all talking about the parts’ relationship to the whole, but I’m talking about forces. Here’s another way of rephrasing my question: How can the laws of chance and necessity conspire to produce something that is no longer subject to chance and necessity? It’s a bit like asking how the laws of physics can conspire to create something that is no longer subject to the laws of physics. After all, that is essentially what I hear you saying in regard to intelligence. It is produced by chance and necessity, but it is no longer subject to chance and necessity. That’s what I mean by 2 + 2 equalling 5. To get back to my original question several posts back, if intelligence is no longer subject to the laws of chance and necessity, doesn’t that make it super-natural, above nature?
Actually PZ, often times, H2 + O2 = BOOM!!! if an ignition source is close by.
You’re arguing that we are no longer susceptible to evolution’s cold indifference?
Where has it been demonstrated that intelligence is not subject to chance and necessity?
No, I’m afraid this is simply a defect in your “hearing”.
And “subject to the laws of chance and necessity” is meaningless verbiage. It’s as though, to use PZ’s latest example, you were to ask “how can water no longer be subject to the law that mixing hydrogen and oxygen created and explosive mixture”?
“Where has it been demonstrated that intelligence is not subject to chance and necessity?”
This is a good question, Blake, and exactly my point. If Darwinian theory is correct, I’m arguing that intelligence must be subject to chance and necessity and, therefore, completely untrustworthy for arriving at true knowledge. Therefore, there’s no way to know if Darwinian theory is correct or if it even exists, because the very faculty used to create it is now under suspicion–by the very faculty that is under suspicion, I might add… With a grin.
. . . which is exactly where I fail to understand your argument. Having an accurate perception of the external world helps survival. Reacting properly to things which are going to kill you lets you have offspring. Mutations which increase the frequency of hallucinations or otherwise distort the ability to perceive reality get selected against.
This argument is only making sense to him.
Because intelligence has been arrived at through evolution it’s untrustworthy?
Because natural selection and random mutation are elements of evolution?
Are you comepletely dense?
Resolutions be damned. I’m wading back into the thick of this.
Steve L.: You’re letting your emotions get in the way of your reasoning again. As I said before, you’re talking about the parts’ relationship to the whole. I’m talking about the forces that bring those parts together. So the question I’m asking is more like, how can gravity and the strong nuclear force bring hydrogen and oxygen molecules together in such a way that the result (water) is no longer subject to gravity and the strong nuclear force?
Actually, Kevin, I don’t anybody is “slipping in an extra digit.” I think you’re arguing that 2+2=2. You’re arguing agaist synergy.
“Having an accurate perception of the external world helps survival. Reacting properly to things which are going to kill you lets you have offspring. Mutations which increase the frequency of hallucinations or otherwise distort the ability to perceive reality get selected against.”
I couldn’t agree more, Blake. (Except for the part about mutations that produce hallucinations. That’s assuming a particular gene can be linked to hallucinations, when it is more likely a combination of psycho-social factors.) What you’re essentially arguing for here is pragmatism. If evolutionary forces produced the mind, then all beliefs and convinctions–including Darwinian theory or religion–are nothing but mental survival strategies. We decide whether or not such beliefs are true depending on whether they have survival benefits. This says nothing about the ultimate truth of these beliefs. For example, belief in heavenly rewards for martyrs may offer survival advantage to a religious group because they are willing to fight to the death, but this does not make their belief in the heavenly rewards true. According to Darwinian theory, ideas are merely tools for meeting human goals. Thus, as I’ve said before, if Darwinian theory is true, then Darwinian theory is not ultimately true but only useful. Therefore, why are Darwinists going to the mat over it against those who disagree with them? Look, I’m not making up these rules, merely trying to follow them to their logical conclusions. Anyone care to join me?
Kseniya: No, I’m arguing forces, they’re arguing the relationship of parts to the whole. Two entirely different things.
You’re halfway there. You’ll get the rest of the way when it dawns on you that our mental activity would be useless as a survival strategy unless it were able to produce at least some of the time reasonably accurate models of the world. Again, are you really prepared to argue that a gazelle that looks at a lion and perceives a lion has no survival advantage over a gazelle that looks at a lion and sees a tree?
Nobody is arguing that EVERY figment the brain produces has a functional relationship to reality- that’s your very own straw man. After all, science is difficult, and it appeared very late indeed in human history.
Oh- and there are no “forces” in nature called “chance and necessity”. You are making a very bad argument from an extremely defective analogy to the fundamental forces of physics. There is no paradox at all here, any more than there is in the observation that a brain can think but a pile of neurons can’t.
Kevin Miller,
I think the problem is that you don’t seem to have any clear idea of what you mean by “truth.” What do you mean by the statement “Darwinian theory is true?” And what do you mean by “ultimately true?” What’s the difference between “truth” and “ultimate truth?” In what way, if any, do you think we can test a proposition to determine whether or not it is true (or “ultimately true”)?
“Are you really prepared to argue that a gazelle that looks at a lion and perceives a lion has no survival advantage over a gazelle that looks at a lion and sees a tree?”
Of course I’m not arguing this, Steve. What I’m saying is that Darwinists, like most people, appear to assume that humans have “woken up” from the blind forces that determine the rest of nature, including the behavior of gazelles. Therefore I think that, despite themselves, they are arguing that intelligence itself is super-natural. Here’s an example: I’m sure you agree that you have a will, and that you can exercise that will in whatever way you deem fit. To me, that says that every time you exercise your will, you are doing what essentially amounts to a super-natural activity–an activity that is not determined by any sort of natural law (except the ones that hold the atoms of your being together).
Contrary to what you say, according to Darwinian theory there are forces called chance and necessity in nature. They’re called random mutation and natural selection. Dawkins, Dennet, and others have gone so far as to call these forces laws. Therefore, I don’t think my analogy to the laws of physics is defective in the slightest. You and others here seem to think I’m being willfully ignorant on this issue (or just plain stupid), but that’s not the case at all. There is a huge paradox here, and I think you’re the ones who are unwilling to address it. Hence all the condescension and name-calling.
Jason, I was tempted to snark that you could have ended your first sentence right after the word “idea.”
Kevin does have some clear philosphical ideas. He’s apparently still in the process of figuring out, though, that philosophy and science aren’t playing by the same rules.
Jason: I defined truth a fair ways up the page (rather loosely I admit) to “in accord with the substance of reality.”
Kevin Miller,
Contrary to what you say, according to Darwinian theory there are forces called chance and necessity in nature.
Let’s say an outcome is “caused” or “determined” if it is an inevitable consequence of a prior condition, and “uncaused” or “random” if it is not. How are human beings capable of producing outcomes that are neither caused nor uncaused? What other possibility is there?
Regardless of your will, you are not in control of your genes. You are only in control of whether you pass on those genes and whether you live long enough to do that.
If you have genetic traits that make you suicidal or reckless, you are less likely to pass those traits on. If you are incredibly smart and a prolific writer but horribly antisocial the same thing applies.
Kevin Miller,
Jason: I defined truth a fair ways up the page (rather loosely I admit) to “in accord with the substance of reality.”
Then if Darwinian theory is “in accord with the substance of reality” (that is, if Darwinian theory is an accurate representation of how the world actually works) how is it “not ultimately true but only useful?”
Jason: You’re missing my point. Darwinian theory only allows for two forces in the universe: chance and necessity. Both of these forces are blind and purposeless. The paradox occurs when Darwinists grant an exception for intelligence, which they say is neither blind nor purposeless. As we all agree, intelligence is both enlightened and purposeful. My question from the start has been, how did intelligence become the exception to the rule? How did it break free from Darwinian forces when everything else in the universe is subject to them?
Kevin,
What I’m saying is that Darwinists, like most people, appear to assume that humans have “woken up” from the blind forces that determine the rest of nature, including the behavior of gazelles.
Actually, I think you’re wrong about that, and this may be the crux of the whole disagreement. That suggests the old “beasts abstract not” myth, and how many naturalists believe that? Very few, I’d bet. I believe I get your point, but I can’t agree, because I don’t see the paradox. Intelligence is not super-natural. Intelligence is a continuum, not trophy cup that only one species holds, and it’s not a requirement for success.
Either way, how does this lead you to suppose that if “Darwinian Theory” is correct, then it must be wrong? I think Stevie is right; the blend of science and philosophy just isn’t working here.
And on a more personal note, this is beyond cute!
You’re just word-chopping yourself around in circles at this point and I’m sorry, but you have been quite unable to clarify the nature of the “paradox” whose existence you keep claiming. By the way, did you know that the interplay of “chance and necessity” may play a major role in the functioning of the brain? Another thing to Google is Gerald Edelman’s theory of “neural Darwinism”. There are more things, including more consequences of “chance and necessity”, in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
By the way, there seems to be an undertone of concerns involving determinism vs. free will in some of what you’re saying, and on that subject I warmly recommend Dennett’s “Freedom Evolves”.
“I believe I get your point, but I can’t agree, because I don’t see the paradox. Intelligence is not super-natural. Intelligence is a continuum, not trophy cup that only one species holds…”
Kseniya, now I think we’re finally getting somewhere. Defining terms is always helpful. (So is commenting on a picture of my son. You hit a sweet spot.) So you see intelligence as a continuum, not a switch that gets flicked on at a certain point. That’s interesting. To take the conversation a step further, I guess we’d have to get into a discussion about self-consciousness as opposed to mere consciousness, because I would say that’s the point at which there is a break in the continuum. But I just started Pinker’s “How the Mind Works,” and I haven’t read the Dennet article Steve L. recommended, so I’ll do a bit more research in this area before resuming this discussion.
It’s been fun, but I’m tired.
Kevin Miller,
Darwinian theory only allows for two forces in the universe: chance and necessity. Both of these forces are blind and purposeless. The paradox occurs when Darwinists grant an exception for intelligence, which they say is neither blind nor purposeless. As we all agree, intelligence is both enlightened and purposeful. My question from the start has been, how did intelligence become the exception to the rule? How did it break free from Darwinian forces when everything else in the universe is subject to them?
It’s hard to know what any of this is supposed to mean because you don’t define your terms. I assume that by “chance” you mean a process or force that produces the type of outcome I defined above as “uncaused” or “random.” And that by “necessity” you mean a process or force that produces the type of outcome I defined above as “caused” or “determined.” And that by “breaking free” of “chance and necessity” you mean the ability to produce an outcome that is the product of neither “chance” nor “necessity.” If this is not what you mean, define the terms “chance” and “necessity” and “breaking free” as you are using them.
Again, how can an outcome be neither caused nor uncaused, neither determined nor random? What other possibility is there? How does this imagined third kind of outcome that you are alluding to (an outcome produced by “breaking free” of “chance and necessity”) differ from both a random outcome and a determined one?
If there is no such third kind of outcome, why are “intelligence” and “purpose” somehow incompatible with “chance and necessity?”
How are human beings capable of producing outcomes that are neither caused nor uncaused? What other possibility is there?
Because you propose a dichotomy. Many things are not “either/or” but “both”.
And intelligence *is* blind and purposeless. The agent that posesses intelligence may not be so, however.
Graculus,
Because you propose a dichotomy. Many things are not “either/or” but “both”.
They cannot be both because the categories are mutually exclusive.
…There is a huge paradox here, and I think you’re the ones who are unwilling to address it.
The problem is that you are taking paradoxes or seeming paradoxes that apply to *all of existence*, and assume that they are problems for “Darwinism” alone.
If our mental faculties are unreliable because they have evolved, then *all* our conclusions are unreliable. If evolved brains falsify evolution, then they also falsify gravity, our model of the solar system, medicine, and so on. I don’t think anyone who applied such extreme skepticism could function in the world at all.
What I’m saying is that Darwinists, like most people, appear to assume that humans have “woken up” from the blind forces that determine the rest of nature, including the behavior of gazelles.
Why wouldn’t gazelles be able to make choices? Presumably their brain makes some primitive decisions – run from the lion now, or stay and eat some more grass? The human brain has acquired a more general decision-making apparatus with something we call “free will” attached, but is it really that different from gazelles? Both species make decisions that are not perfect, but on average help survival.
I’d argue that people who understand biology — let’s abandon that term “Darwinists” once and for all — are more able to see the animal parts of human nature. We know when the reptile brain is in control. If you grasp what science has revealed to us, you’re better able to question the idea that humans are quintessentially special, “ensouled” in some fashion which lifts us above the rest of nature.
(Isn’t it nice now that the thread has settled down?)
Yes.
let’s abandon that term “Darwinists” once and for all
Yes, let’s. Can we lose “neodarwinist” too?
Hahahaha, oh my God! Are you guys sure that PZ Myers is real person? It’s more likely that he’s Scott Adams alter ego just entertaining us. I find it very unlikely that someone, like PZ myers, that seems to at least partially have a functional brain, acts like his mental age is about 10% of his physical age.
Hahaha, anyways, whoever you are PZ Myers, thanks for a good laugh! I just hope for your own sake that youre not being serious!
Say what? You can’t exercise your will in whatever way you deem fit. Can you will yourself to have a crippling fear of gophers, or to despise your closest family and friends? Can you will yourself to quickly eliminate a severe drug addiction, or cure your own brain damage or mental illness? Unless you’re Batman, no, you can’t.
This has nothing to do with “Darwinism” or evolutionary theory in general; when you claim that the mind is somehow exempt from natural law, it’s psychology and neurology which refute you.
Incidentally, the only definition of “free will” I’ve ever heard that makes any sense is, “the inability to precisely predict your own decisions.” You can’t beat natural law, but you can and do beat your own ability to self-simulate.
Say what? You can’t exercise your will in whatever way you deem fit. Can you will yourself to have a crippling fear of gophers, or to despise your closest family and friends? Can you will yourself to quickly eliminate a severe drug addiction, or cure your own brain damage or mental illness? Unless you’re Batman, no, you can’t.
This has nothing to do with “Darwinism” or evolutionary theory in general; when you claim that the mind is somehow exempt from natural law, it’s psychology and neurology which refute you.
Incidentally, the only definition of “free will” I’ve ever heard that makes any sense is, “the inability to precisely predict your own decisions.” You can’t beat natural law, but you can and do beat your own ability at self-simulation.
Just look at the above. I willed myself not to double-post–didn’t work.
Hhmm, I see its been busy. Unfortunately, there appears to be a mjor communications disconnection between us and Kevin. It’s as if he is speaking a different language.
Kevin, your comment about evolution with regards to blind chance and necessity and the truth of evolution, make no sense. I lack the capabilities to understand what you are talking about.
Why would something be useful for survival and yet not true? My breathing oxygen is useful for my survival, and also true.
KEvin, it was also myself who talked about prating. I read some Dawkins a while ago, not read any Dennet. Last I checked, DEnnet was a philosopher of the mind, hence is at the bleeding edge of science and the gray area where it merges into philosophy. Therefore what he says about stuff needs to be considered carefully, and will not necessarily relate to the actual scientific consensus.
As for “truth” and evolution- if Evolution is an accurate representation of the origin of species etc, then is it not “true”, as it is a model of “reality”?
Your strange logic about pragmatism and truth makes no sense to me.
Also, I was amused by your comment:
“4. “Evolution does not equal ideas.” Agreed. But it does start with an idea, and if that idea is illogical, so goes the rest of the show.”
But as a science, evolution starts with observation, and an idea, and testing of that idea. Logic has little to do with it. Quantum mechanics was not exactly logical, but it was forced upon scientists as the best explanation for the observations.
Quantum mechanics is logical, in that it can be approached on its own terms and studied with perfect clarity mathematically. One can say, however, that it is not reasonable, because it flaunts its disagreement with our intuitions. Probabilistic behaviors? Complex numbers? Entanglement? These are not the sort of traits which good objects display.
Unfortunately, the fundamental constituents of the Universe have no concept of propriety.
Anton Mates:
Actually, it’s the things one can’t will oneself to resist that fascinate me: you just know that little mini-hamster’s gonna nip your fingernail, but you’re compelled to waggle your finger in front of that mini-maw anyway…
Ok, Blake has just put it better than I did.
What we appear to have here with Kevin is that his logical starting point is somewhere different from ours.
You seem to know the point, but not understand it… Adams isn’t serious, he’s playing with thought experiments. Just as he said in the beginning of his book. It’s just a bit of mental masturbatory fun, just playing with semantics, mostly. For those that understand it, it’s great, for those that don’t, too bad. :-)
A week later and they are stiil coming.
2000 years ago, a skeptic said much the same about those who would someday come to be called ‘Christians’, though it was said in Greek.
If he played with ideas in a way that made logical sense, everyone would probably have been a little less upset. Instead, he threw out a nonsensical argument which couldn’t possibly do what he claimed to be doing, and then stuck with it when people complained.
These are the sort of antics which give semantics a bad name.
And you’re still here. Get over it, this blog belongs to everyone.
Excuse me?
You’re excused?
I know you are, but what am I?
Wow, you guys take yourselves way too seriously. I’ve read the Dilbert blog a few times. While I may not agree with his views at least he exhibts some class and doesn’t personally insult other authors.
This is a poor example of how to debate a topic, far below any acedemic standards.
You seem to know the point, but not understand it… Adams isn’t serious, he’s playing with thought experiments. Just as he said in the beginning of his book. It’s just a bit of mental masturbatory fun, just playing with semantics, mostly. For those that understand it, it’s great, for those that don’t, too bad. :-)
Hey, why don’t you explain it , then?
The fact is that Adams tried to be clever here, and make a point about the human brain being a mechanism that isn’t really “intelligent”, but his rhetoric doesn’t work; it is based on a genetic fallacy, a la the notion that he who tends fat cows must be fat, or that water molecules must be wet. Adams isn’t as smart as he thinks he is, but at least he isn’t nearly as stupid as his fanclub who blather about him not being serious without having the faintest understanding of what he’s actually trying to say.
“doesn’t personally insult other authors.”
Yeah, that SHAAH thing? A term of endearment.
Keep ’em coming, chuckleheads!
I can’t understand the hatred for Adams. You may not agree with what he says, or how he says it, but let’s not underestimate the power of people thinking about science who would otherwise normally never do so. What if the effect of people reading his blog entries is that it interests them to research more into the field? I can’t say that is too far fetched. And isn’t more researching minds the best way to progress in any field of science?
So disagree with his beliefs all you want, but I would prefer that you would offer rebuttals to further a debate as opposed to just calling him an idiot. Do something productive, and post sources to his blog where people can find the latest scientific thoughts. Or just continue to call him an idiot and prove yourself to be just as worthless to the scientific community.
So you can show up A WEEK LATER to bitch about one blogpost, but you can’t be bothered to actually read the comment thread and see that there has been a massive amount of very clear explanation of exactly where Adams went wrong in his “reasoning”? You’re a fine one to talk.
Hahahaa! You people all sound like opposing English football club fans. “Oi mate, those silly creationist bastards ain’t gunna beat our boys, the wankers!”. Grow up. Get off your self appointed intellectual, whiny, preachy, snobby high horses. Stop waving your intelligence around like it’s a pissing contest, it’s redundant. Science isn’t exact, and few truths are absolute. You carry on about how stupid the religious or the engineers are for their faith and views, when you carry the same faith in science, often blindly. Adults listen, process and then agree, disagree or agree to disagree. Not spew vitriol. After all, science is all about being objective and open minded.
And calling bullshit when you see it.
You can’t skip that part.
The defenders need to unify their argument. There’s three divergent defenses.
1. He was only joking. You don’t get it. You have no sense of humor. You’re mean.
2. You’re an arrogant scientist with a closed mind. Adams’ meanderings are interesting.
3. You’re the same as creationists and have blind faith in science because…
We’ve addressed all these lame execuses for Adams saying something stupid.
It’s just that most of his fans haven’t bothered to read the thread.
Read the thread.
XD….this is highly amusing.
I wasted a little too much of my lunch break reading all the insanity.
Doggerel #31: “Looks like I’ve touched a nerve!” as if that makes Scott Adam’s blog post any less stupid and fallacious, or makes it an unpardonable sin to point out stupid and fallacious (read: PHB-esque) arguments.
Doggerel #25: “Science is just another religion!” as if fervor in pointing out a fundamental logical fallacy somehow turns empirical evidence and practical knowledge into baseless faith.
The whole “Scott was being sarcastic/joking/satirizing” strikes me as a Pee-Wee Herman “I meant to do that!”
Face it: Scott’s been caught having an extended Induhvidual Moment.
Speaking on the humor front: PZ has been much funnier than Scott Adams overall: That’s one reason why I visit Pharyngula every day and only Dilbert.com once or twice a month or so to read all the strips for a couple light chuckles. PZ’s also educational when he’s funny.
On the big LOL! front, today I got the hilarious mental image of him showing up at some conference dressed up as a raptor.
PZ’s got much more nerd/geek cred, too.
I am in no way one of the “defenders of Scott Adams,” as I have no particular reason to defend him (he’s not my friend, for cryin’ out loud!). Still, I went back and read the original post of his that this one responded to, and I couldn’t help but wonder if maybe “The whole ‘Scott was being sarcastic/joking/satirizing'” isn’t just a “Pee-Wee Herman ‘I meant to do that!'”, but actually true. I know there will probably be a few groans from the people who’ve been commenting on here for a while, and I realize this has been brought a number of times (I did go back and at least skim the threads thus far), but I think that it essentially the root of the dilemma here. It’s not that I think the PZ defenders are lacking humor, or take themselves too seriously. I do, however, think it is possible that they were taking Scott Adams a little too seriously, more than he would even want. But hey, I’m just a man.
It may well be true; the point is, that’s not a good excuse. This is a topic on which, given the current obscurantist-friendly zeitgeist in the US, stupid pronouncements (whether humorously intended or not) are a genuine nuisance. And take note of the flagrantly creationist fellow-travelers who were attracted by Adams’s crap and showed up here to “defend” it. When you lie down with dogs…
Yep.
Another yep.
Indubitably.
Steve LaBonne,
From where I’m sitting, I see your characterization of Scott’s post as a bit circular. Essentially, you reason that his writing on the subject is a “geniune nuisance” because it is “stupid”. But what is it about the post that you find stupid in the first place? Is it that you believe he wrote what he did out of a genuine love for Jesus and hatred of science? If that were the case, I’d be right there with you, but I really don’t think it is. So your frustration with Scott and his post must stem elsewhere. I am willing to listen.
No, it’s that he presents as though he’s serious (I’m not a mindreader, so I don’t pretend to know whether he actually means it, nor does it matter) some supremely muddled IDiot “reasoning”, thereby giving “celebrity” aid and comfort to the dimwits who really do hate evolutionary biology. Some of whom, I repeat, showed up on this comment thread and clearly did take his crap seriously. I’ll turn your question around- why do you think Adams should escape criticism for that?
Loser,
It stems from his saying stupid shit, regardless of his motive.
The intelligent universe argument, even if just semantic, is dubious.
Especially at a time where the religious use almost the same argument to argue that “god did it”.
And no I’m not the same Steve. He might have something entirely different to say.
This is for Steve_C. I’ll address Steve LaBonne’s comment in a second.
“…the religious use almost the same argument to argue that ‘god did it’.”
I think you hit the nail on the head. Scott was using an argument very similar to that which Creationists often do, and by doing so, he successfully revealed the rediculousness of their views, which they cling very seriousy to. In a sense, he is agreeing with you.
I’m not Steve_C, but I have to say that’s about the most absurd piece of special pleading I’ve ever seen. If that’s what he meant to do, he could and should have come out and said so. He’s had ample opportunity.
Steve LaBonne,
I don’t know if I can fully answer that question, but I will try to respond the best I can to the points you made.
First, I would say in response to you’re statement that Scott’s post used “Idiot ‘reasoning'” by saying that I basically agree with you. For the purpose of reality, the idea of intelligence being applied to the big bang (for example) has no practical use. For me, the interesting part was not the end conclusion, which was just silly, but the argument that led to the conclusion. Sometimes listening to idiot reasoning helps me simply because it is a different perspective. I reiterate, though, that I am in full agreement that the reasoning is basically just silly.
As for the “celebrity aid” he gives, it is tough to hold that against him. Of course the fact that he is a minor celebrity adds weight to whatever he says, but that is the fault of the people let it be so, not his.
That brings me to your point that many Creationists take comfort in his words which provide support for their beliefs. This is where it gets tricky. I can’t deny that that is unfortunate, so I am forced to live with the fact that the joke is still on them. If those Creationists are so blinded that they can’t see this, than there is probably little that could be said to change their views anyway.
So should Scott Adams escape criticism? I can’t really be sure. I do know that I have nothing critical to say.
Steve LaBonne;
A Brief response to your comment:
“If that’s what he meant to do, he could and should have come out and said so. He’s had ample opportunity.”
I doubt very much if Scott cares enough to do so, and even if he did, it wouldn’t be his style. Take it or leave it. Still, I would rather hear your response to the comment I sent you. I’m at work, so yes, I do have all day.
I have nothing further to say except, nobody asked you to be critical. You took the initiative to object to those who do think it’s appropriate to be critical, and I already explained at length why I think you were off base in doing so.
Steve LaBonne,
It was with that last comment you made that you single handedly turned our discussion into an argument. I never wanted to arm-wrestle, only discuss ideas, and I was certainly never critical of your right to criticize. Everyone has that right; however, it’s a two way street. And you, my friend, are going against traffic.
And you, my friend, are going against traffic.
easy enough to do if you drive a tank.
OTOH, have you considered that the flow of those you perceive around you might all be headed the wrong way?
or did you feel the “strength in numbers” argument to be sufficient in and of itself?
interesting. I gotta bridge I wanna show you.
I gotta admit, Dilbert fans must outweigh Pharyngula fans by an order of magnitude, given how long this particular bit has maintained itself.
Ichthyic,
My mistake for mixing metaphores. I did’t refer to Steve LaBonne’s “going against traffic” to mean that he is going against the masses, which I often support. Instead, I only meant that I felt Steve LB was clogging the road of discussion. It’s a crappy metaphore and I meant no confusion. That said, how do you weigh in, if at all, on the discussion we attempted?
By the way, I ride a bicycle.
Thank you for that response. And you are right, the whole metamorphosis issue is a “conundrum” to me. Perhaps it is my inability to see a large picture. What I mean is I find it hard to see how an organism can effectively evolve into something that splits its life into such disparate stages. I know you can use the life cycle of a frog (tadpole to frog stage) but I would say the metamorphosis of a caterpillar to butterfly to be substantially more strange.
The eating vs mating stage makes sense, but you have to admit that that seems to be an amazing piece of evolution…so amazing as to appear…supernatural…if I may use that word in this context.
I want to apologize for my earlier attacks…I have spent some time reading http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html and while exceedingly dry at times, has made for some interesting reading. Certainly eye-opening.
I still reserve the right to poo-poo evolution as it pertains to butterflies though :)
As a follow up to my above post, as I mentioned, I have been reading through http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html and something caught my eye in Section 14: Conclusion
In that section, the author summarizes some “Good and Bad models”. Model 3 is:
I like that one. Not so much the “God” aspect, but the thought that something external caused some changes in evolution. However, since there is no empirical evidence of that, I would end up simply arguing with myself about it :)
God has an inordinate fondness for metamorphosis?
“I like that one. Not so much the “God” aspect, but the thought that something external caused some changes in evolution. However, since there is no empirical evidence of that, I would end up simply arguing with myself about it :)”
What do you mean by “something external?”
From my understanding of evolution, which is far from perfect, external forces essentially dictate the direction in which species evolve. So if this is what you mean, I’m right with you.
Look! It’s a gangbang! Let’s join in on the orgy!
-the commenters of this page
Instead of ever trying to understand the arguments, or dissect the arguments, or look at the historical background of the arguments, or even read the arguments, people here seem to think that they are above petty philosophy. Frankly, you do not have an answer to him. Is he right? We will certainly see, but you are completely unqualified to tell. Adams does not sport a one-sided view. Neither does he have a new philosophy. It reeks of enlightenment thought. And yet you act as if he is a mystic bent on creationism. Good job, you’ve successfully sung along with the choir.
That said, how do you weigh in, if at all, on the discussion we attempted?
frankly, I don’t see the point. I think this discussion has been given the death of many cuts.
give it the last rites and move on.
Why do people who think that they are above everyone else, always react badly when someone comes up with an idea/insight/theory (whatever you want to call it) that they hadn’t thought of first. It’s just a shame some people are so full of themselves that they don’t take the time to listen to other people. And I’m not referring to Scott Adams. It’s pathetic.
No Ronnie, the problem is that someone comes up with an idea that has already been thought of, and later dismissed due to it being stupid, and then people still take him and his ideas seriously. And I’m not reffering to PZ.
Scott Adams seemed slightly piqued by my comparing him to Arthur Conan Doyle. I rarely cross-post, but (since Adams holds comments for moderation) I’ll take that liberty here.
______________________
I have been an ardent fan of the Sherlock Holmes stories all my life — but that does not oblige me to share Arthur Conan Doyle’s belief in fairies. Similarly, I continue to enjoy Dilbert at the same time that I find everything Scott Adams has written on intelligent design to be silly (in an unfunny way) and — let’s face it — downright embarrassing.
[Ever notice the lack of specifics? That’s because the specifics that people object to are based on poor reading comprehension and not on any arguments I’ve made. — Scott]
______________________
OK; fair enough. The specifically silly (and unfunny) stuff began, as I recall, on Nov. 12, 2005, when you wrote a lengthy commentary on “Darwinism” saying, among other things that
“The Intelligent Design people allege that some experts within each narrow field are NOT convinced that the evidence within their specialty is a slam-dunk support of Darwin.
…
[T]he scientists are in a weird peer pressure, herd mentality loop where they think that the other guy must have the “good stuff.”
Is that possible? I have no way of knowing.”
Hogwash. You did and still do have a straightforward way of knowing. Go out and learn something about the subject. You’ll find that the fields of paleobiology, genetics, embryology and all the other subspecialties comprising evolutionary biology are filled with researchers who see support for common descent in their respective fields, not each in someone else’s. That’s not a hard thing to find out. In fact, it takes a resolute determination to keep a dumb argument alive to not find it out. What you wrote was, and still is, dumb. And what you wrote here (that anything giving rise to intelligence must be, by definition, intelligent) is circular, boring, and, yes — dumb. It’s embarrassing, Scott. You are looking more and more like a comedian who doesn’t know when to leave the stage. We’re sorry for you, but we can’t help you if you won’t help yourself.
Thank you for portraying this pompous idiot with such unnerring accuracy! There are few things as dangerous as an ignorant fool with an audience, and we are fortunate that you have maintained the will to continue to expose the charlatan for what he is; an ignorant fool who lacks the capacity for basic honesty! Stick to the funny pages fool, and leave the science to the scientists! Thanks again and keep up the good work.
TFP
>>Because you propose a dichotomy. Many things are not “either/or” but “both”.
>They cannot be both because the categories are mutually exclusive.
Um, there is also “they are both false” and “false dichotomy to start with”.
I’m jest sayin’.
Sooo, it seems American “Scientists” take themselves very seriously. They are also quite rude and self righteous.
You guys need to relax a little, chill out. Down here in Australia we know how to enjoy life and have fun, while also thinking about the important things. Come visit one day for a lesson if you wish. I’d be happy to show you around.
Sooo, it seems American “Scientists” take themselves very seriously. They are also quite rude and self righteous.
yeah, now only if they weren’t also right.
shucks.
this thread is STILL going???
Down here in Australia we know how to enjoy life and have fun, while also thinking about the important things.
read: Fosters.
It bears repeating that Adams IS NOT AN ENGINEER.
It keeps mistakenly coming up that he is one, when it is obvious to any professional engineer worth his or her salt that habitually thinking in the loopy, unrigorous way Adams does would likely mean the unsuccessful implementation of many principles, if not the swift end to a career in engineering. Engineers have to make things work. Reality and even the scientific method (yep, it belongs to all of us) do come into play. Scott’s tenuous grasp on at least one of these makes it rather insulting to most engineers that he should be mistaken for one.
Great work, PZ. Stick with the comics, Scott. To each, his own.
Who cares what you think, really?
I just lost the ability to appriciate one of my formerly favorite comic strips.
So why has this post attracted so much attention lately? I noticed because some of the traffic is bleeding over to my blog, following the link in #17 to a comment on Johnny Hart’s elusive humor.
I wonder what’s up.
This reminds me of the YouTube comments that a clip of Dilbert and Dogbert arguing evolution received (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19PfUIovUaU).
Lol…. You Asshat.
Did you know that Aussies don’t drink Fosters? It’s our export beer which we aren’t stupid enough to drink ourselves. In the 6 years I’ve been allowed to legally buy alcohol, I haven’t even seen a single can in any liquor store across several states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster%27s_Lager#Australian_market
Though apart from Coopers, the mainstream beers aren’t anything to sing home about.
Perhaps “sing” is not the best word to use in your argument…
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8885159090946272441
(freaking huge!)
气动马达
气动搅拌机
If you want invite to a party list, another thing that wasn’t gone into in great detail. If you and a friend are just starting the game and want to travel together, the first thing you will have to do is find one another. On the first time you load the game, it will be easy.