Troy Tyson said:Remember, things are only funny if there's some truth to them.
**********************************
Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus
Intelligent Des---
(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?
(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)
Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!
Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all
the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example,
your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a
baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere
preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was
designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current
situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation
you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain
that you are experiencing right now.Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!
Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the
random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this
particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this
hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed
that way!Intelligent Design advocate: YOU [censored]! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!
Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I
think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should
really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking
of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over
again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove
that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into
the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence
right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged
kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bull**** sophistry! Get me a
doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that
plays in court!Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when
push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe
any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters
that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable
hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege
naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical
wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological
crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we
so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once,
to be the one spouting free-form bull****; it's so terribly easy and
relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical
evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be
habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.
**********************:::troy:::
--
saerah
"Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a
disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice."
-Baruch Spinoza
"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly
what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear
and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There
is another theory which states that this has already happened."
-Douglas Adams