…a note to the defenders of evolution: there’s a fine line between legit criticism of evolution and wacko/nut job criticism. I think your tone in this debate turns off lay-people because in attacking the latter, you appear to be attacking the former. It feels like you’re making evolution sacrosanct, impervious to criticism. Let us peer into your world. Show us how you investigate inconsistencies or vagaries in the theory. Instruct us on how one thinks critically about evolution. Please don’t lecture us about how wrong ID’ers are and how they are whack-jobs. We know this. Instead, show us the beauty of your subject and in the light of its beauty, the crazy talk will become self-evident.
The only problem I have with Scott Adam’s blog is that he says it better than I do and with much, much more humor:
Let me say very clearly here that I’m not denying the EXISTENCE of slam-dunk credible evidence for evolution. What I’m denying is the existence of credible PEOPLE to inform me of this evidence.
The people who purport to have evidence of evolution do a spectacular job of making themselves non-credible. And since I don’t have any relevant scientific knowledge myself, nor direct access to the data, everything I know has to come from non-credible types. To me, it’s like hiring a serial cannibal as a babysitter based on the fact that he PROMISES not to eat your kids despite having eaten all the other kids on the block. It might be a fact that he’s telling the truth. The problem is that he’s not credible. (The other problem is that he eats your kids.)