Uh...yeah....so because one is pro-intelligent design that automatically makes them nonsense?
Maybe you should research more - here's a direct quote from Scott Adams:
"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.)"
Second, did you actually read it or did you base your opinion on your own biased view?
BTW: I didn't ask you to read it this time - I was talking to Eh! Team.
I read it....and it's hokum dressed up in basic sociology and junk science.
The basic sociology in this book is things like the mind as an illusion generator, people taking comfort in collective and useful delusions, science as a belief system, the useful fictions in science becoming accepted as fact, and even the idea of god as a metaphor for society and environment.
The pop science is almost everything he said about biology and physics. I was especially amused at the God-dust theory of gravity, which is Newtonian gravity in different language.
Oh, and since you didn't care to quote Scott Adams full remarks, allow me to post what he said further along:
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.”
Nonsense. Scientists are experts in their specialized field. And there's is no debate among the scientific fields as the the authenticity of evolution being the accepted truth about life on earth.
There are NO two-sides to this. The fact that Adams allows for the two sides to seemingly have equal weight in his own mind allows us to see from where he was sitting when he wrote his equally pseudo-scientific philosophy novella, God's Debris.
The fact that you hold it up as some kind of philosophical enlightenment or epiphany or revelation or uncovered truth or whatever, only serves the point that gullible people, who haven't bothered being educated in science, are susceptible to fall as intellectual prey to pseudo-scientific philosophizing rather than being able to use their critical thinking skills grounded on actual knowledge.
If you had even a shred of curiosity for actual truth, you'd go and learn scientific fundamentals and not rely on the musings and thought-experiments of comic strip authors for your understanding about Thermodynamics or Evolution or Newtonian Physics, and whatever else Adams tries to twist into his fictionally based attempt to join philosophy and science, which is at the heart of what Intelligent Designers are attempting to do. They say they aren't Creationists, but they are. It's just that they have re-packaged themselves. Philosophy stopped giving us 'truths' long ago. There isn't anything new to be found in that discipline anymore. It's run its course. It's dead.
Edited by Sharpshooter, 23 August 2012 - 12:19 PM.