Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Intelligent Design, Part 1
Dilbert.Blog ^ | Nov 12, 2005 | Scott Adams

Posted on 11/13/2005 6:21:50 AM PST by ml/nj

To me, the most fascinating aspect of the debate over Darwinism versus Intelligent Design is that neither side understands the other side’s argument. Better yet, no one seems to understand their own side’s argument. But that doesn’t stop anyone from having a passionate opinion.

I’ve been doing lots of reading on the subject, trying to gather comic fodder. I fully expected to validate my preconceived notion that the Darwinists had a mountain of credible evidence and the Intelligent Design folks were creationist kooks disguising themselves as scientists. That’s the way the media paints it. I had no reason to believe otherwise. The truth is a lot more interesting. Allow me to set you straight. (Note: I’m not a believer in Intelligent Design, Creationism, Darwinism, free will, non-monetary compensation, or anything else I can’t eat if I try hard enough.)

First of all, you’d be hard pressed to find a useful debate about Darwinism and Intelligent Design, of the sort that you could use to form your own opinion. I can’t find one, and I’ve looked. What you have instead is each side misrepresenting the other’s position and then making a good argument for why the misrepresentation is wrong. (If you don’t believe me, just watch the comments I get to this post.)

To make things more complicated, both sides have good and bad arguments lumped into them. If you make a good argument on your side, I respond by attacking your bad argument instead. If it were a debate contest, both sides would lose.

For example, Darwinists often argue that Intelligent Design can’t be true because we know the earth is over 10,000 years old. That would be a great argument, supported by every relevant branch of science, except that it has nothing to do with Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design accepts an old earth and even accepts the fact that species probably evolved. They only question the “how.” Creationists have jumped on that bandwagon as a way to poke holes in Darwinism. The Creationists and the Intelligent Design folks have the same target (Darwin), but they don’t have the same argument. The average person who has a strong opinion on this topic doesn’t understand that distinction because the political agenda of the creationists makes things murky.

On the other side, Intelligent Design advocates point out a number of flaws in the textbooks that teach Darwinism. Apparently both sides of the debate acknowledge that the evidence for evolution is sometimes overstated or distorted in the service of making it simpler to teach. If you add to that the outright errors (acknowledged by both sides), the history of fossil frauds, the subjectivity of classifying fossils, and the fact that all of the human-like fossils ever found can fit inside a small box, you have lots of easy targets for the opponents. (Relax. I’m not saying Darwinism is wrong. I’m saying both sides have lots of easy targets.)

The other problem for people like me is that the “good” arguments on both sides are too complicated for me to understand. My fallback position in situations like this has always been to trust the experts – the scientists – of which more than 90%+ are sure that Darwin got it right.

The Intelligent Design people have a not-so-kooky argument against the idea of trusting 90%+ of scientists. They point out that evolution is supported by different branches of science (paleontologists, microbiologists, etc.) and those folks are specialists who only understand their own field. That’s no problem, you think, because each scientist validates Darwinism from his or her own specialty, then they all compare notes, and everything fits. Right?

Here’s where it gets interesting. 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. Each branch of science, they say, has pro-Darwinists who acknowledge that while they assume the other branches of science have more solid evidence for Darwinism, their own branch is lacking in that high level of certainty. In other words, the 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.

But let me give you a little analogy. One time in my corporate career I was assigned to lead a project to build a 10 million dollar technology laboratory. The project was based on the fact that “hundreds of our customers” wanted a place to test our technology before buying our products. I interviewed several managers who told me the same thing. Months into the project, I discovered that there was in fact only one customer who had once asked for that service, and he had been satisfied with another solution. The story of that one customer had been told and retold until everyone believed that someone else had direct knowledge of the hundreds of customers in need. If you guessed that we immediately stopped the project, you’ve never worked in a big company. We just changed our “reasons” and continued until funding got cut for unrelated budget reasons.

I’d be surprised if 90%+ of scientists are wrong about the evidence for Darwinism. But if you think it’s impossible, you’ve lived a sheltered life.


TOPICS: Religion; Science
KEYWORDS: darwin; design; evolution; intelligent
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-25 last
To: ovrtaxt
"Why is the burden of proof solely on ID? Why the double standard? "

I think the standard’s the same for all ideas to be included in a science class. They simply have to be supported by objective evidence, becoming a theory rather than just an idea. Then some gain sufficient evidence that moves them from theory to fact.

While ID evangelicals are searching for their first piece of evidence, some activists want it moved into science classes now. Some apparently think that their best hope for evidence is to disprove a critical component of evolution. They’re attacking its weak points, as they should, but haven’t achieved anything approaching a disproof.

Some ID activists appear to be attempting to equate the lack of evidence that would prove evolution as a fact with the a “double standard” imposed on ID by expecting it to present any objective evidence that would make it a theory. I think that’s what you’re picking up on. They want to bar lowered for ID’s entry into science, but present it as an unfair burden on them.

21 posted on 12/28/2005 6:28:16 AM PST by elfman2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 13Sisters76

If you want to make a point to me, please put it succinctly in your own words. I can’t read every belligerent pontification copied and pasted to me. Life’s short


22 posted on 12/28/2005 6:31:29 AM PST by elfman2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: elfman2

Well, I AM sorry you don't read. Too bad really.
Here's the thing- not ONE person here is an expert in this subject. Therefore I prefer to post the article rather than doing what some do- post information as their own, typing info they do NOT understand.


23 posted on 12/29/2005 11:31:21 AM PST by 13Sisters76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 13Sisters76
"Therefore I prefer to post the article rather than doing what some do- post information as their own, typing info they do NOT understand."

There’s an old adage that you don’t really learn something until you have to teach it. I’ve found that to be true. Also, you don’t lean how to reconcile disagreements without practice in composing focused rebuttals.

If we all just copied and pasted our own propaganda, the fools with the most time to waste polluting discussions with rubbish would dominate. And then like you, they’d demand the attention of those expected to read their spam. Spend any time on a forum like this or in public an you’ll recognize the need to separate junk mail from real dialogue.

I hope that helps your in the future.

24 posted on 12/29/2005 1:02:50 PM PST by elfman2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

Atheism is a religion. It requires faith that evolution is true. I say "faith" because there is no factual scientific proof that species evolved, just a bunch of guess because two specie looks like each other.


25 posted on 01/23/2006 8:10:05 AM PST by CodeToad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-25 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson