…and this is a 
Will Scott Adams never learn?
Category: Creationism • Stupidity
Posted on: January 30, 2007 10:43 PM, by PZ Myers
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.
Comments
It's kind of sad, really. Scott Adams is a funny guy, but he's just so off anytime it comes to science. I read his laughable "philosophy" book a year or two ago, the one he put online for free. It was basically just stuff he made up, then presented it as if it was really insightful. The scary part is that he actually has legions of fans online crooning about how ingenious it is, how it's 'finally a vision of the universe that makes sense', etc.
I started reading The Dilbert Blog when he started doing it, but I stopped reading it when all of that nonsense about evolution was posted. Since then I've read Pharyngula in exclusion over The Dilbert Blog. You go PZ: maybe you're not as funny, but you're definitely more well qualified to talk on these kinds of subjects.
Posted by: Cyde Weys | January 30, 2007 10:50 PM
Dilbert is funny... its disappointing to realize that Scott Adams is dumb.
I mean there are plenty of parallels between the idiocy of corporate America, and the idiocy of any organized religion.
Posted by: Robert | January 30, 2007 11:02 PM
That's a little disheartening. From all the hilarious links to Dilbert Blog posted to Reddit, I figured Adams would be smarter than this. Guess not.
Posted by: Cody | January 30, 2007 11:06 PM
I read God's Debris, and my head exploded from the banality.
Posted by: j | January 30, 2007 11:07 PM
This is disappointing. Adams seemed to be going in the right direction for a bit, with his posts on atheism (one of which got reposted to RichardDawkins.net), but this is just pathetic.
Posted by: Cairnarvon | January 30, 2007 11:08 PM
Posted by: llewelly | January 30, 2007 11:10 PM
as we already know--the processes that drive evolution do not require active intervention by any intelligent agent
I actually have nothing against the idea that the process behind evolution is intelligent because frankly there isn't any hard definition one way or the other of what constitutes intelligence. However what we know is that the process behind evolution does not engage in design nor it is self aware. This sounds like a rambling quibble but I have a point and not just on my head.
The point is that compared to humans limited abilities what nature has accomplished through evolution is kinda awe inspiring. So to say that intelligent algorithm's are behind evolution makes some sense. Certainly more sense than to say that they are 'random' or 'stupid'.
Posted by: Gibbon1 | January 30, 2007 11:12 PM
I think the reason Dilbert shows such insight into the stupidity of corporate culture is because the author is an expert exemplar of such stupidity.
Posted by: PZ Myers | January 30, 2007 11:13 PM
Perhaps I was referring not to the size of the pea, but its starchy vegetable nature.
Posted by: PZ Myers | January 30, 2007 11:15 PM
The current state of the Internet requires that its creator was obsessed with porn. Big Bang created the Internet. Therefore, the Big Bang is obsessed with porn.
Posted by: windy | January 30, 2007 11:17 PM
"If you reject the Big Bang as being intelligent - after acknowledging that it created so many books and other works of art, it leaves you with no test for intelligence."
Uhh ...the hell?
Someone is killed by a falling tree, which in turn was hit by lightning. Is the tree a murderer? Is the lightning?
Poor da Vinci. First they bastardize his name by associating it with a certain highly overpublicized movie, and now mindless explosions (incidentally, explosions tend not to have minds, while intelligent things usually do) are getting the credit for his masterpieces.
Posted by: Chinchillazilla | January 30, 2007 11:18 PM
Scott Adams made a short comment here:
http://scienceblogs.com/omnibrain/2007/01/the_dilbert_blog_weighs_in_on.php
Posted by: steve | January 30, 2007 11:19 PM
I am hopeful that Adams' insight into the stupidity of corporate culture means there is intelligence in Adams that may yet manifest itself in reason on evolution. God, but I am an optimist.
This is another case where one needs to understand what is good, and what is bad, and not claim that everything any human does is all one or the other. Most humans just are not built that way. Adams' work on corporate insanity and inanity is good; that in no way makes him an expert on evolution, or any part of science (though I think he may have been an engineer at one time . . . more anecdotal evidence for the attraction creationism has to engineers; when do the anecdotes become plentiful enough to count as statistically significant?)
Adams fight against spasmodic dysphonia is also inspiring. Diane Rehm's fight shows that one need not sacrifice one's reason or skepticism in the battle, though. Fighting a disease, even beating it, doesn't make one a prophet, nor even necessarily an expert.
And, isn't it funny that so many people adopt the view that the development of a zygote requires the intervention of a supernatural being, until someone's teenaged daughter gets pregnant without benefit of marriage? Then it's a moral failure. And then they claim they don't practice situational ethics.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | January 30, 2007 11:21 PM
I don't see anything even remotely creationist in Adams' post, but then again, I don't have a grudge against the guy like you seem to.
PZ, I generally agree with your posts, but you come off like such a fucking child sometimes.
Posted by: jeffk | January 30, 2007 11:22 PM
I think Adams is giving Melville just a little too much credit with this.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich | January 30, 2007 11:24 PM
Certainly more sense than to say that they are 'random' or 'stupid'.
And the only people who say that are... creationists.
Hmmm... does this drivel sound familiar?
Posted by: Graculus | January 30, 2007 11:24 PM
Scott Adams is an extremely talented sifter of corporate excesses (he must get hundreds of contributions per day) and has a good sense of how best to portray them in the narrow confines of his comic strip. I usually enjoy reading Dilbert.
Unfortunately, Adams is also one of those people who thinks his skill in one area makes him an expert in other areas. (Someone should remind him how much he disdains experts.) It's a lot like those engineers who have "science envy" and end up prattling nonsense about evolution and intelligent design creationism. They should stick to their engineering and cartoonists should stick to their humor.
Unless, of course, as in today's B.C., your humor has abandoned all mass appeal and shrunk to a pinprick of inside humor.
Posted by: Zeno | January 30, 2007 11:24 PM
"conclude that everything in the universe is intelligent: phosphorylation is intelligent, sperm are intelligent, carrots intelligent, bacteria are intelligent, interstellar dust is intelligent."
I've heard that proposed as a 'serious' theory, which, if I was a "good open-minded person" I would take seriously because the person who suggested it had "thought a lot about it, and meant really well". When I pointed out that rocks seemed pretty darn dumb [in both senses of the word], it was suggested that maybe we just weren't listening the right way and I 'should open my heart'.
(I was told that my science-based perspective was 'wrong' because it talked about 'right and wrong answers', that nothing that labeled a statement as 'wrong' could be a 'right' perspective. However this maxim did not apply to the speaker's judgement of my position...)
Posted by: Christopher Gwyn | January 30, 2007 11:26 PM
See, something like this is funny. It's also curious that Adams declares himself to be a non-believer near the end. Why oh why then does he write gobbledygook on intelligence like this?
Posted by: Cody | January 30, 2007 11:27 PM
I remember a book of Cicero's called "The Nature of the God's" (really everyone should read him) where he's talking about gods and a stoic proposes that god is fortune and the universe. He has his spokesman reply that if the universe is better than man, and you being a lute player, the universe must play a mean lute. That is paraphrased of course, but the point is simple enough and the absurdity shines clear.
Actually when I first read the post I couldn't think of it as anything other than a joke. I mean really, the Big Bang wrote Moby Dick. That's actually funny. It seems just too good a set up and too good a punch line to be someones honestly held beliefs. I still can't wrap my brain around how anyone could honestly think that, and I've had tons of expereince with creationists. Maybe I'm just used to those particular nut ball claims.
But this? This just hurts.
Posted by: Michael | January 30, 2007 11:27 PM
I've been enjoying the Dilbert cartoons for many years. I did not realize their creator was a nutcase. After checking all the links, I'll be taking him off my "daily reading" list. Seriously, I don't want to support him by giving him the ad revenue.
Posted by: Hans Derycke | January 30, 2007 11:29 PM
How disappointing. Now I'll always be looking for other cases of sloppy thinking in the Dilberts, which I used to enjoy.
I would've thought the pointy haired boss would be the creationist, not the cartoonist.
Posted by: Ali | January 30, 2007 11:31 PM
Crazy. It's like I have to do a background check on everyone before you take what they say seriously. The amount of people out there that believe stupid shit astounds me more and more every day. Any new book I want to read I need to do a quick google and wiki search to check the author isn't a creationist evolution botherer.
Posted by: Steven | January 30, 2007 11:35 PM
It's true that creationism seems to have an odd attraction for engineers (this might be a variant of new-hammer syndrome- when you design things for a living, everything looks designed), but Adams isn't an engineer. He's an MBA.
At least creationist engineers know how to do somethinguseful.
Posted by: Ktesibios | January 30, 2007 11:43 PM
Huh. Well, there goes any remaining respect I might have had for that guy.
Posted by: thaumaturge | January 30, 2007 11:43 PM
As a minion in the corporate world (not quite the pointy haired boss, but getting there) who is actually a huge Dilbert fan, I must say I am disappointed. Dilbert is quite close to the normal corporate environment, so it is sad to see Adams loose the accuracy that the cartoon displays of the corporate world.
Oh well, Adams can be a moron when pontificating on biology, but at least Dilbert himself isn't suffering. Of course, as soon as the first ID Dilbert appears, that would be the first sign of the decline in quality. (Strangely enough, when people outside of my area refer to our department, they have a little bit of a Freudian slip, referring to the underwriting department as the undertaking department. Go figure.....)
Posted by: Christian | January 30, 2007 11:44 PM
Seriously? Are you people really this dense? The article has NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATIONISM. PZ has a chip on his shoulder, and I can see he has no problem rallying the sheep. Ali and Hans up here are the most recent examples, but the rest of you need to learn how to read and think for yourselves. Otherwise you're no better than the young-earthers.
Posted by: jeffk | January 30, 2007 11:46 PM
Scott Adams ceased to be funny years ago.
Posted by: donna | January 30, 2007 11:49 PM
Adam's argument (that you must have quality A to create quality A) is the same one Augustine used in On the Trinity to justify the diety of Jesus. He's in good company that way I guess.
oh, and Augustine later recanted that argument. Maybe Adams will do the same?
Posted by: dorid | January 30, 2007 11:50 PM
What a lot of assholes above me. Worse than the pope looking through a telescope, for sure.
I guess, I guess...god is a possibility, no? Proof? None whatsoever, beyond aphorisms like, "A creation suggests a creator".
The fact that unlikely theories such as "The whole world is a big computer" doesn't seem to induce hornet-nest-asshole syndrome in scientific people suggests that what they are really concerned about is not matters of truth|falsehood but who|whom. Non-reproducing losers who own the Matrix on DVD don't seem to raise anybody's hackles the way bible-thumpers with progeny do.
The real concern, I think, is that an alternative worldview is competing with science which has, for its merits, a strong evolutionary advantage rather than internal consistency or even good sense.
Posted by: onetwothree | January 30, 2007 11:56 PM
He's just being funny. I'm not sure that it's correct to say he's pretending to be a colossal boob - the nature of it is more subtle than that. But certainly anyone who wants to take his intentionally absurd ideas at face value and consider them brilliant is ... well ... looking pretty boobular, or boobacious, or boobalicious, or whatever the word is.
Posted by: Russell Blackford | January 31, 2007 12:12 AM
Of course, if he is by any chance being serious someone should point out that Descartes ran a similar argument (in his case arguing for the existence of God) way back in the 17th century and it's a very long time since anyone has taken it seriously. I hope he's not setting up shop as a philosopher.
Posted by: Russell Blackford | January 31, 2007 12:15 AM
I'd like to add something here, but PZ covered it pretty well in his original essay. The way Adams defines intelligence makes pretty much everything intelligent. There's no need to even get into the complex examples PZ gave. Every chemical reaction is intelligent by his definition. Also, with no way of knowing what exactly the future holds, everything around us is intelligent. Who knows, that dirt you're stepping on today could be an essential component of the evolution of a creature that manages to write a novel on another planet billions of years from now after the Sun's exploded. Must mean that dirt's intelligent. What a stupid concept.
Posted by: Fatboy | January 31, 2007 12:16 AM
I think he is attempting to claim Deism, and is not so much, anti-evolution, as he is pro prime mover...
The problem is, he is using an ID argument presented as evidence for his Deist conclusion, where Deism cannot be shown true or false by its very definition...
Finally, as PZ pointed out, you cannot have your cake and eat it as well, as you cannot claim Intelligence requires an intelligent source, and then avoid what this indicates about "God" as the Alpha and Omega...
Posted by: Lagomortis | January 31, 2007 12:19 AM
Ah, I've now read his explanation on the other blog, which seems clear enough.
Posted by: Russell Blackford | January 31, 2007 12:22 AM
I had a brief email dialog with Scott Adams way back in 1998 -- that was when I discovered that he was a New Age loon.
In fact, this is how I discovered Pharyngula! In July 2006 I got curious again if Mr. Adams had discovered the error of his thinking. I did some Googling and ran across PZ's fabulous reply. I was so proud to see it was written by someone that lived right here in my home state of Minnesota and I've been a loyal Pharyngula reader ever since.
I don't know if anyone remembers a rather odd series of Dilbert comics in about 1998 where Adams was making fun of the irrationality of skeptics. They were so odd that I got curious and took a look at his website. It was then that I learned he was really into some goofy New Age stuff.
I was most puzzled by this Adams letter replying to the Illinois Skeptics. Scott Adams says:
So what method does Scott Adams use to answer the questions about reality? Whatever is fun and makes him rich (I'm not kidding, read his stuff).
Posted by: Sonja | January 31, 2007 12:22 AM
I have a hard time believing Adams is being serious here. I mean, he can't honestly believe that when he drops a pencil and picks it up, it makes sense to think that the Big Bang is also picking up the pencil.
This is just so obviously wrong that I refuse to believe anyone could be so dumb to propose it seriously. He has to be joking...right?
I mean, I could find where he lives and punch him in the face for writing this drivel, and I doubt he'd forgive me when I explained that he was actually punching himself in the face because it was his idiotic rant about intelligence that first caused me to punch him.
Posted by: Saint Gasoline | January 31, 2007 12:26 AM
The problem is semantics.
Isn't language grand?
Posted by: Drew | January 31, 2007 12:31 AM
Shorter jeffk: "I don't understand the connection. Therefore, you're all stupid."
Posted by: Chris Clarke | January 31, 2007 12:32 AM
Stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself!
Posted by: James | January 31, 2007 12:35 AM
There's no such thing as bad publicity.
It's not literally true, or universally true, but generally so. And your collective responses do not constitute bad publicity as I understand the concept.
The ability to manipulate and anticipate the reactions of other people is a very useful skill, which although not part of traditional conceptions of intelligence, is highly associated with success. Adams may not be particularly bright in a general sense, but clearly he's bright enough - and brighter than you're being.
Posted by: Caledonian | January 31, 2007 12:40 AM
Here's how it looks from this part of the UK.
1. Most people don't think much/at all about this sort of thing (life, the universe and everything) because they have more important things to do (earning a crust, raising their children, having fun).
2. Those of us who subscribe to Pharyngula; read Dawkins, Dennett and Harris; argue about this stuff are what we'd call 'anoraks' on this side of the pond. It means, 'nerds' but nerds of everything. My guess is that that most of the posters here are, like me, atheist anoraks. Hands up all those who listen to the Point of Inquiry podcast......there, see what I mean. How many posters here are women....that's right, virtually none: women, by definition, can't be nerds or anoraks.
3. Based on 1 and 2 we can see that Scott Adams is just a regular guy - hasn't thought about the god/no god thing much (certainly not as much as we have!) - and he's just doodling with the idea as many people would.
My father-in-law is the only person I know in the real world who actually gives a damn about all this stuff: most people have too much else going on in their lives to worry abuot the stuff we think is important. (He is, incidentally, a PAP agnostic in Dawkins' terms, but I won't bore you with that story now.)
Posted by: Andrew | January 31, 2007 12:52 AM
The ability to manipulate and anticipate the reactions of other people is a very useful skill, which although not part of traditional conceptions of intelligence, is highly associated with success. Adams may not be particularly bright in a general sense, but clearly he's bright enough - and brighter than you're being.
HA! I knew you'd say something stupid like this way back when when I encouraged PZ to keep it up with these threads. Through PZ, I manipulated you, Calbaloneyium! MOO HOO HOO HAW HAW HAW!!!!
Posted by: Great White Wonder | January 31, 2007 12:58 AM
PZ has a chip on his shoulder, and I can see he has no problem rallying the sheep.
Indeed! He can lead a horse to water but he can't make silk out of a pig's ear. Of course, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence but also it doesn't grow on a playground except between the cracks.
Baaa!!!!
Posted by: Great White Wonder | January 31, 2007 1:01 AM
I can't wait to read Ed Brayton's analysis of this post.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | January 31, 2007 1:02 AM
Scott Adams has a long track record on this sort of stuff. Chapter 14 of 'The Dilbert Future' is pretty cringe worthy, especially his musings on gravity.
Posted by: Knight of L-sama | January 31, 2007 2:15 AM
GWW, you make me laugh on a regular basis. A stitch in time will save nine worms unless the bird is early to bed, early to rise. Or something like that.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | January 31, 2007 2:15 AM
You can lead a horticulture but you can't make her bypass Goedel's incompleteness theorem.
Posted by: Ken Cope | January 31, 2007 2:24 AM
PZ - For symmetry's sake, you should write a bad comic strip, in which everyone is cool and the boss is great and they do everything right. And maybe there is a really nice helpful squid named squid-ernie.
Posted by: FQ | January 31, 2007 2:31 AM
"How many posters here are women....that's right, virtually none: women, by definition, can't be nerds or anoraks."
Better duck, Andrew; there are a lot of razor-sharp female nerds who comment on this blog and there's a possibility they might object to this stereotype.
Signed,
STH, Card-Carrying Female Nerd
Posted by: STH | January 31, 2007 2:32 AM
The fact that unlikely theories such as "The whole world is a big computer" doesn't seem to induce hornet-nest-asshole syndrome in scientific people suggests that what they are really concerned about is not matters of truth|falsehood but who|whom. Non-reproducing losers who own the Matrix on DVD don't seem to raise anybody's hackles the way bible-thumpers with progeny do.
1. "The whole world is a big computer" idea is something I personally have criticized rather often, probably in these very threads (can't remember every post and comment off the top of my head). But you see, to criticize such an idea you have to be familiar with it's details. Someone familiar with the mathematical formulations of theoretical comp sci knows that there are legitimate arguments around the implications of information theory formulations on our understanding of physics. I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't even be able to give the definition of a self-delimiting string, let alone be able to adequately evaluate the claims made by Chaitin, Deutsch and others.
2. Scientists criticize everything, it's their job. Creationism comes earns a disproportion ire from scientists because it abuses science for entirely political and religious purposes. That you would accuse us of being the ideological hacks is more than a bit ironic.
3. So we're somehow analogous to "non-reproducing losers who own The Matrix on DVD", huh? So tossing half-baked generalizations is an argument, in your mind? This is why not everyone is fit to be a scientist or a mathematician, and also a reason why I and others here get a wee bit pissed of by presumptuous dicks like yourself.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 31, 2007 2:36 AM
I just finished reading his book 'God's Debris', & for some reason, I keep thinking of Andy Kaufman's inter-gender wrestling schticks - he CAN'T be serious, & this is seriously unfunny.
& saying the cause is the same thing as the effect is...well, he's a wooster - god-a-doodle-woo!
He should stick to comic strips. This crap is funnier when encapsulated.
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | January 31, 2007 2:47 AM
This is exactly the argument (Adam's argument) Dawkins' refuted in his book "The Blind Watchmaker".
Posted by: the c | January 31, 2007 2:55 AM
Adams doesn't even draw Dilbert anymore. (Anybody remember the change in drawing style and subject matter a couple years ago?) He's in the enviable position of not ever having to work and just shoot off whatever he wants about anything and have peole revere him for it. can I get a ticket on that train?
Posted by: djlactin | January 31, 2007 3:09 AM
You are a fucking idiot. Scott Adams is an atheist, anti-religion, and a well-written proponent against the idea of free will. You are completely unable to understand irony and sarcasm.
Posted by: Andrew | January 31, 2007 4:03 AM
"women, by definition, can't be nerds or anoraks."
Andrew, get ready for the attack of the Femi-nerdies.
Posted by: MartinC | January 31, 2007 4:18 AM
PZ, I'm another of the avid lurkers here and big fan of the site. I've never been a fan of Dilbert, and don't think I've even read a strip of it in a few years.
The Scott Adams quote was so good I had to go to the links and read it myself, and sure enough it's not misquoted.
But if anyone here goes to the link to omnibrain and actually reads his reply, they'll quickly see that he wasn't being serious. It wasn't funny at all, I think, but it's along the same lines as what Colbert does every night. I'm honestly surprised no one seems to have actually read that.
I see people all the time, especially from other of us lefties, accusing right-wingers of not understanding sarcasm and humor even if it hits them in the face. We say things like "How can't they understand it was sarcasm? The guy advocated eating Irish babies!" but then some of us can't stop and apply the same to ourselves.
Guys, when someone makes a tautological definition of intelligence in one sentence, it's clearly an attempt at parody or sarcasm. He failed, and is just not funny, but don't accuse him of espousing these absolutely stupid beliefs just because it feels good to crucify a moron for holding ill-founded ideas in mind. He clearly doesn't.
Posted by: Aces | January 31, 2007 4:21 AM
Just because you don't agree with Adam's opinion, doesn't make him wrong and you right.
that's called arrogance my friend
Posted by: rossi | January 31, 2007 4:22 AM
Actually Scott makes fun of religious people too. He's not an creationist!?
And his post are mostly fun and interesting. But of course he's not 100% right on everything all the time ...
It would be silly to deny evolution though. But on the other hand evolution doesn't say anything about a possible creator, since it's not abiogenesis. There still could be a 'creator' who started evolution. Or did I miss the proof that such a 'creator' cannot exist?
Posted by: Daldianus | January 31, 2007 4:31 AM
Dr. Myers, I fear you may look too hard for creationist stupidity on the internet. Let's try to remember here that Scott Adams is not aiming for the same target audience that you are aiming for. His readers are not scientists. He himself is not a scientist. He is not trying to propose serious alternative scientific theories.
All he is doing in this post is pointing out an error in the way some (most) people might define intelligence. Sure, science may have a thousand better ways of defining it, but (a) most people don't know what they are, and (b) his point is not entirely serious, which you seem to be ignoring. Of course he doesn't think the Big Bang is intelligent. And I didn't think that was too hard to see, given the context of the post.
Perhaps you have spent too much time around right wing creationist nutjobs to be able to spot irony...
Posted by: ----- | January 31, 2007 4:32 AM
added: as for God's debris, he states in the introduction that its theory is flawed and the readers should try to identify the flaws!
Posted by: Daldianus | January 31, 2007 4:33 AM
I have to second (third?) the suggestion that everyone reads Scott's comment at:
http://scienceblogs.com/omnibrain/2007/01/the_dilbert_blog_weighs_in_on.php
You might still think he's wrong, but you can't accuse him of being serious about the intelligence of the big bang. The context is important: Scott thinks the illusion of free will is, well, an illusion, and he's made several posts on that topic. This most recent is just another on that theme.
Posted by: Owen | January 31, 2007 4:51 AM
You did point out how stupid his reasoning was. And it was stupid. But oh, what a wasted opportunity! Adams is so not a stupid person -- he did fall for the standard ID line, so he's not infallible, but (I believe) he would have been receptive to a measured, reasoned explanation of his mistake.
But you didn't give him one. Despite the fact that everything you said was correct, your whole tone was so belittling and negative that you effectively guaranteed he wouldn't respond positively. Where there was the chance to convince a well-known and highly-regarded popular figure to change his mind on a contentious issue, you instead provided him with (as he would see it) more evidence of the narrow-mindedness of scientists!
Not everyone who expresses a superficially pro-ID argument necessarily deserves the same drubbing as the big players. Sometimes, just explaining where they are wrong will do.
Posted by: Owen | January 31, 2007 5:17 AM
"I take the practical approach - that something is fascist if it unambiguously performs tasks that require fascism. Writing Mein Kampf required fascism. The Big Bang wrote Mein Kampf. Therefore, the Big Bang is a Nazi, and you and I are created by that same Nazi. Therefore, we are created by an Nazi entity."
After having read a few of Adams' ramblings over at his blog, I find that while it is mildly amusing to skewer his disinformation and illogic, it is unlikely to have any salutary effect on him or his readers, because he is
a) obviously just trying to provoke "controversy" and/or be "funny", and
b) obviously not sure himself what he really "believes".
Posted by: zilch | January 31, 2007 5:32 AM
Actually, it struck me as funny when I first read Adams' blog, and it still does. It's a sendup of the creationist theories, if anything. In point of fact, far from being a lonesome crank, he's rather close to Taoist and Buddhist beliefs here.
Some days he's just funnier than others, but he rarely seems to take anything seriously. The irony is that so many readers here (and even the blogger) take Adams' statements seriously. I think Adams has accomplished something truly remarkable: He's pissed off both atheists and creationists with one blog entry.
I hate to intrude some Puckisms into a catfight, but this debate about religious belief isn't world-shaking. It's funny. The truth will never change, no matter what philosophical shades the combatants wear, and endless wrangling is merely a form of entertainment. Adams has shown himself to be an extremely talented court jester, messing with people on all sides of the issue and getting enormous notoriety and profit from it.
Posted by: Tim | January 31, 2007 6:17 AM
The pointy hair has grown back. Time for a shave.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | January 31, 2007 7:53 AM
"Will Scott Adams never learn?" No, Scott Adams will never learn. This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | January 31, 2007 8:15 AM
"Better duck, Andrew; there are a lot of razor-sharp female nerds who comment on this blog"
"Andrew, get ready for the attack of the Femi-nerdies."
I've taken cover - reassured to hear that we're not all chaps!
On my original point, there are an awful lot of intelligent people out there who haven't thought much about IDism, evolution, life, the universe etc. I was talking to an Oxford educated lawyer recently who started on the 'evolution is just a theory' line: undoubtedly a clever man but he simply hadn't got his head around this stuff.
Posted by: AndrewC | January 31, 2007 8:26 AM
Look, we've been over this 'He's just being funny, naaargh!' bullshit already. Read the actual post, you retarded Dilbo-heads.
Posted by: Stogoe | January 31, 2007 8:27 AM
He was either saying dumb things because he honestly believed them, or because he wanted to provoke people. Turns out it's the latter. In neither case is what he wrote actually funny.
Right up top, PZ said the following:
Damn straight. Lesson to all you Colbert wanna-bes out there: more wit. Being stupid in a smart way is hard; that's why Voltaire's Pangloss is immortal and why everybody I know prefers Borat over Ali G.
In my personal judgment, which is obviously in accord with the fundamental aesthetic scale of the Cosmos, Dilbert hasn't been funny in six years, maybe seven. That's why God gave us Sinfest.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | January 31, 2007 8:32 AM
I used to be a big fan of Dilbert (It's been kind of coasting for a few years), so when I heard that he was starting a blog, I was interested to see it.
I think I read it for about a month before I decided that he was certifiably hatstand, and that every post made me dumber. And that went double for the various posts on ID, which as I recall, ended up with something like "Anyone who relies on the authority of scientists or creationists rather than doing the research themselves is a fool. But now a judge has listened to both sides, and come up with The Answer. So, by accepting the judge's second-hand decision, I am smarter than all of you."
But on the plus side, it got me reading Pharyngula. So, thank you Scott Adams for being such a certifiable moron.
Hrm, I wonder if he's related to that other cartoonist moron, Neal "I solved geology" Adams...
Posted by: wintermute | January 31, 2007 8:33 AM
wow you really are an idiot! scott adams' blog is meant to be funny, and it generally is. that post which you quote out of context was completely tongue-in-cheek...only a reductionist maroon (apparently such as yourself) could take it literally. i can imagine how boring and intolerant you must be as a 'teacher' too...your students probably learn more by staring out the window or reading dilbert comics. in fact if the whole 'associate professor' thing doesn't pan out your lack of imagination and tolerance indicate that you'd make a great middle manager.
get a life. and don't ever watch colbert or the daily show because you'll no doubt take it literally and then i might have to accidentally read your idiotic misinterpretation and waste another 5 minutes of my life.
Posted by: jason | January 31, 2007 9:02 AM
So, wait... I'm obviously missing something. I just took it for granted that Scott Adams was a master of irony, and left it at that. The postings you refer to - to me they read as ironic stabs against the "head up your own butt" logic that most creationists go in for.
So I have to wonder : do you know the meaning of irony?
(hint: it dosen't mean "sort of like iron")
Posted by: Bob | January 31, 2007 9:02 AM
I lost all respect for Adams many years ago, when I read "The Dilbert Principle" (I *think* that was the one). There's a chapter where he says, in essence, "Wishing makes it so." Seriously. It may not be that volume in particular, but he goes on about how he'd write his goal (wish) 10 times per day, and at the end of some unspecified amount of time, he'd reach his goal (get his wish). I was dumbfounded -- seriously, he thinks that the act of writing down his wish will make it come true?! -- but on re-reading, that was indeed what he was saying.
Unreal.
Posted by: jan andrea | January 31, 2007 9:05 AM
Oh, and I wanted to clarify -- this wasn't goal setting like "I will do 100 push-ups by the end of the week" -- this was wish-fulfillment like "10 more newspapers will buy my strip" or "I will have a cash windfall" -- things he has no direct control over, not things where a positive attitude will change his habits, etc.
And I love the term femi-nerd :lol:
Posted by: jan andrea | January 31, 2007 9:09 AM
The first part may be true; the second certainly is not.
The Daily Show? You mean John Stewart just pretends to be a liberal? Really? And Colbert, unlike Adams, actually manages to be entertaining, funny and clever.
And if PZ is so boring and stupid, why did you waste five minutes reading this? There are other websites out there, you know. Or maybe you can look into moving out of your mother's basement.
Posted by: wintermute | January 31, 2007 9:11 AM
Wow, Adams could not have put together a worse, more illogical argument if he tried. The Big Bang actually picked up the pencil I just picked up? Whaaaa?
Posted by: Ric | January 31, 2007 9:37 AM
I've always assumed that at least half of what Scott writes on his blog is designed to provoke a reaction. I'm sure he's a lot smarter than he makes out to be and is just baiting the line to see what bites.
About 1/4 of the Dilbert blog is worth reading. Compared to about 2% of the BBC world news RSS feed, that's pretty good odds for me.
Posted by: Andy Cunningham | January 31, 2007 9:37 AM
Godwin-ing this thread won't work.
Posted by: Rick @ shrimp and grits | January 31, 2007 9:42 AM
Hmmm, if Godwinning this thread won't bring it to a halt (and I don't think the original formulation of Godwin's Law said that the discussion would stop), then it's time to bring out some earthy, down-home country wisdom from America's Heartland.
Son, shit don't smell like roses. Unless you're wanting to give your best girl a bottle of cow pies next Valentine's Day, I'm suggesting you stop pretending it's so.
Simple enough?
Nobody has to pretend there's an ounce of intellect worth defending in Scott Adams's "argument". That's fine; he's clearly joking, so it doesn't mean he's stupid or anything. Sadly, the joke falls flat. There's good humor to be had in creationism (remember when the Flying Spaghetti Monster was new?) but he hasn't found it yet. Neither has South Park. So it goes.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | January 31, 2007 9:51 AM
I have made the argument (on my blog) that this is all a joke. One would not predict Scott Adams is an IDer. There seems to be a growing trend in leg pulling here and elsewhere (like the recent Chronicle article).
I don't really think it is a joke, but one can be hop