Scott Adams made some ill-conceived comments in his blog, and his errors were corrected.

You stand up for the errors. Why?
Ed Darrell | 11.22.05 - 12:20 am | #

Is that what it sounds like to you Ed?
David Heddle | Homepage | 11.22.05 - 4:35 am | #

That's what is sounds like to me Mr. Heddle. Perhaps you could explain it better?
GCT | 11.22.05 - 12:04 pm | #

"That is indeed a fascinating dynamic, when someone is so awful at making any sort of reasoned, cogent argument that you wish he would defect to the opposition."

You certainly should know about making unreasonable arguments Mr Heddle.
Jim | 11.22.05 - 1:33 pm | #

Jim,
Clarify for me how the arguments David makes are "unreasonable."

Making a bland statement ike that without supporting it in anyway is either a, sloppy or b, a personal attack and is, in either case, much more unreasonable in the normal sense of the word.
matt | Homepage | 11.22.05 - 9:45 pm | #

I'd have to agree with Ed and GCT.
Steven S | 11.23.05 - 2:14 pm | #

"You stand up for the errors."

Do you see anything in my post affirming what Scott Adam's wrote? It is about a biologist making a fool of himself by flipping out over what a cartoonist wrote. I don't care what Adams says about science, I only hope that he continues to write funny Dilbert strips. The post is not about Adams at all. I wouldn't care what Paris Hilton says about ID or evolution either--but apparently we know someone who would care--at least he would care if she didn't regurgitate accepted dogma.
David Heddle | Homepage | 11.23.05 - 3:07 pm | #

Your stumbling away from what you wrote is less funny than Scott Adams' claiming his original post was a ruse to get a rise out of people. Adams' stuff was old, mainline ID, anti-science diatribe. How could anyone think it was meant to be funny?

Myers took him to task, and pointed out errors. Myers properly noted that Adams gave too much credence to crank science. Adams' response was that it was all a joke.

Well, Mr. Heddle, what about the incident is it you ARE defending? You took after Myers originally . . . are you saying ID is really worthy of the ridicule Adams claimed to heap on it?
Ed Darrell | 11.23.05 - 11:14 pm | #

Ed, what is so hard about this? I am not defending what Adams wrote, I am laughing, along with a lot of other people, at the fact that a biologist would flip out over what a cartoonist wrote on evolution, responding with a lengthy rebuttal. If he had written "did anyone see what Adam's wrote? He should stick to comic strips," then nobody would have made a big deal about his response. But he went after Adams in a completely disproportionate manner. Then, in characteristic fashion, he (a) told the Scott Adams fans they were no longer welcome to comment on his blog and (b) posted a link to a tasteless joke about Adams's mother. What's not to find pathetic in all this?
David Heddle | Homepage | 11.24.05 - 6:42 am | #

Scott Adams' stock in trade has been his credibility in poking fun at stupidity. Dr. Myers was rightly upset that Adams adopted a stupid stance favoring crank science, and appropriately and accurately took Adams to task.

Why you find that funny is anyone's guess. I felt sorry for Adams that he'd stepped so far out of his realm of knowledge, and got the facts so wrong.

But then, since when has anyone in the ID movement ever given a fig for truth, for the facts, or for accurate science?

And then you compliment Witt's inaccurate slash and hack piece in the Seattle Times? Good gracious.

Witt's continuting prevarications about Sternberg's situation is unseemly. If the OFfice of Special Counsel found any problems, pray tell, why did they not do what the law requires them to do and pass it on to proper authorities? The attorney who wrote the letter violated the law and his ethical canons in the letter -- but of course, to ID advocates, a little lie in support of the greater cause is no concern . . .

If ID is religious in nature, it's a mighty peculiar religion.

Myers told the trolls from Adams blog, the nuts and abusers, to stay away. Do you defend their profanity, their inanity, their rudeness?

Does ID have anything of value to offer in any field?
Ed Darrell | 11.24.05 - 11:20 pm | #

It is sort of funny that a cartoonish biologist gets all het up about a cartoonists thoughts on biology.

Myers is a jackass, plain and simple. That anyone defends him just shows how spouting the correct beliefs trumps common sense.
Matt Weber | 11.25.05 - 9:30 pm | #

Myers a "cartoonish" biologist? He has more papers in the last five years than all ID advocates have on ID in the last 25 years.

Why is that? Does that mean I can call ID a cartoonish idea, promoted by a claque of cartoonish scientists?

Why not?
Ed Darrell | 11.25.05 - 10:25 pm | #