Arguments without evidence (Filed under "Pointless")

Scott Adams decided to take on the anti-ID crowd to stoke up some controversy, incurring the wrath of PZ. (Getting the feeling that we pro-evolution types are getting really sick of having to explain this crap over and over again?)

One of my most annoying habits is qouting myself...here I go again. My comment on Laura's blog, repeated with only nominal edits here because I'm too lazy to write more:

Scott Adams is an entertainer. He has a financial interest in garnering attention by stoking up arguments that he will later mock. Using his own argument and my own irony detectors, I claim that he has no credibility in assessing the credibility of others.

Really, if he wants his blog essay to convince me, he needs to site his sources. He says he's done a lot of research on what both sides have to say, so he should be willing to provide us retroactive endnotes for some of the examples that he reports to have read from ID'ers and Evolutionists. An argument that lacks evidence is little more than an intellectual parlor trick.

Until I see his citations, he's just another crackpot with a blog, like the rest of us. (Except that he has a cartoon strip with with a readership of millions.)