I have been startled at how thought-provoking his posts have been, and I was particularly startled by this recent post, which demonstrated a really keen analysis of many of the issues in the debate between evolution and ID.
Which is more than I can say for some ex-university acquaintances of mine, who are still convinced that:
a) ID is "God of the Gaps"
As a scientist, I see things every day that we can't yet explain. We tend not to put in papers `because we don't understand this, we conclude that someone designed it this way' not because `someone designed it this way' is a logically impossible conclusion, but because it raises far more questions than it answers.
b) ID has a political/religious agenda
discussion of the designer is deliberately discouraged by ID proponents, as part of the strategy to sidestep the US ban on teaching creationism in schools and to mask the religious motivation of most of those who support ID
c) ID should 'fess up to who the designer is
Doesn't ID rather beg the question of who the "intelligent designer" is? Given the lack of verifiable data, that strikes me as a rather religious question.
d) ID is the same as young earth creationism
Creationism is scientifically foolish because, in its strong form (God created everything just like it is now, just after having his breakfast on Sunday 23 October 4004 BC), it contradicts things that are observed, and in its weak form (created everything), it tells us nothing. Believe it, if you like, it may even be right, but it is not scientific.
... none of which errors Scott Adams falls into. Guess they must be too highly trained, or something ....
