Science vs. Intelligent Design

[karohemd]

found by bringeroflight

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 BASTARD! 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 bullshit 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 bullshit; 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.

Comments

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

This makes very little sense - if it supports the scientific mindset, why are the aterations to the structure of the mans knee being made by an intelligent being taking an active role? Doesn't that completely undermine the whole point of the piece?