You may have read my little response to Intelligent Design and were mildly impressed but if you’re looking for some juicy, fist-flinging, hair-pulling debate on the subject, I would suggest you take a look over at The Dilbert Blog. Scott Adams has written a little piece on the subject and with over 200 comments already is stirring up some hornets? nest big time.
Both sides misrepresent the others? position (either intentionally or because they don?t know better or because of bias) and then attack the misrepresentation. Therefore, neither side is credible (to me).
If you want to do an in-depth study of the arguments for and against Evolution vs. Intelligent Design, I would start there. Not that Scott has articulated the cases so well but rather that those who commented (or emailed him) have probably hit every related idea and many times over. ID, part 1 = 300+ comments – ID, part 2= 250+ comments and Who’s Credible = 230+ comments. I think the subject has been covered. The thing I liked the best was in the third post where Scott gives this example.
Let me point out, by way of background, that all of the intelligence agencies of every major country believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. That was based on lots of data that all pointed in the same direction. It’s probably safe to say that those agencies had a preconceived notion that Saddam had WMD, and so they saw all of the data as consistent with that view.
We all have presuppositions, what’s yours?
The sheer – what, volume? magnitude? of the response there amazes me. At the risk of sounding elitist (um. No) I’d like to look over those hundreds of comments just to get a sense of the “signal to noise” ratio.