Evolution vs Intelligent Design...

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.

That was priceless lol

*nods*....nice.....

alot of truth in that piece of comedy....

Pretty well said...

Hehehe....

Nice, Nivek.....you need to come here more often!!!

indeed well done.

😆 Nice.

Yay Nivek!!

haha. well summed.

Groupthink

'An illusion of invulnerability, which creates excessive optimism and encourages taking extreme risks'

Does your organisation, cult or group suffer from groupthink? Stephen Castro in this book argues that the Findhorn community in Scotland is a classic example of this dangerous phenomenon. The behavioural symptoms to watch out for are as follows:

(1) An illusion of invulnerability, shared by most or all the members, which creates excessive optimism and encourages taking extreme risks.

(2) Collective efforts to rationalise in order to discount warnings which might lead the members to reconsider their assumptions before they recommit themselves to their past policy decisions.

(3) An unquestioned belief in the group's inherent morality, inclining the members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.

(4) Stereotyped views of rivals and enemies as too evil to warrant genuine attempts to negotiate, or as too weak and stupid to counter whatever risky attempts are made to defeat their purposes.

(5) Direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, making clear that this type of dissent is contrary to what is expected of all loyal members.

(6) Self-censorship of deviations from the apparent group consensus, reflecting each member's inclination to minimise to himself the importance of his doubts and counter-arguments.

(7) A shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgements conforming to the majority view (partly resulting from self-censorship of deviations, augmented by the false assumption that silence means consent).

(8) The emergence of self-appointed mindguards - members who protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions.

Quoted by Castro from J. R. Eiser, Social Psychology (Cambridge University Press, 1986, pp 38-39).

Originally posted by whobdamandog

genius post 🙂

😂

First off - good post.

Second off - The only rebuttal is an accusation of groupthink instead of actual reasonable arguemnts? That brings me back to my first point - good post.

Originally posted by Ron Jeremy
genius post 🙂

Groupthinker 😐

Darth Revan, don't you think you should acknowledge that this was a copy and paste job?

Ah, tis wonderful how the medium, the genre, of satire can so succinctly capture issues and display the absurdity that exists with in them. Jolly good post. 😄 😄

And though the absurd accusations of groupthink could be leveled against me I will say fine, but if the group's thinking is in line with my own I can do nothing less then agree.

I don't want to just add to the praise but that was well said...

An attempt to take credit for the work of another is known in the real world as 'plagiarism'.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
An attempt to take credit for the work of another is known in the real world as 'plagiarism'.

I'm sorry—did I ever claim that I wrote that? (I also apologize for getting rid of your obscenely large font) Anyways, I found it on another forum, the poster there said he got it in an email and didn't know where it came from. Perhaps you should acknowledge that whoever DID write it was a comic genius.

whob> You're just jealous. diva

I love how the only think Who can post is some childish remark about us being groupthinker's or whatever the hell the plural is. When the true irony is that all of it points right back to him and even though he will probably read what I am writing right now he wont take the time and effort to actually try and prove me wrong or dissuade me, just post some other pointless thing that has nothing to do with anything and doesn't have any bearing on what we are talking about...
Bring it on...😉