An Anonymous Scientist Discusses Intelligent Design

By Joe Anonymous

Moderator: We’re here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Design. (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.

Teaches children to read

Donald Rumsfeld is giving the President his daily briefing. He concludes by saying: “Yesterday, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed.” “Oh No!” the President exclaims. “That’s terrible!”

His staff sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as the President sits, head in hands. Finally, the President looks up and asks, “How many is a brazillion?”

President Bush was visiting a primary school and he visited one of the classes. They were in the middle of a discussion related to words and their meanings. The teacher asked the President if he would like to lead the discussion on the word “tragedy.” So the illustrious leader asked the class for an example of a “tragedy.”

One little boy stood up and offered: “If my best friend, who lives on a farm, is playing in the field and a tractor runs over him and kills him, that would be a tragedy”.

“No,” said Bush, “that would be an accident.”

A little girl raised her hand: “If a school bus carrying 50 children drove over a cliff, killing everyone inside, that would be a tragedy.”

“I’m afraid not,” explained the president. “That’s what we would call great loss.” The room went silent. No other children volunteered. Bush searched the room. “Isn’t there someone here who can give me an example of a tragedy?”

Finally at the back of the room a small boy raised his hand. In a quiet voice he said: “If Air Force One carrying you and Mrs. Bush was struck by a “friendly fire” missile and blown to smithereens, that would be a tragedy.”

“Fantastic!” exclaimed Bush. “That’s right. And can you tell me why that would be a tragedy?” “Well,” said the boy, “It has to be a tragedy, because it certainly wouldn’t be a great loss and it probably wouldn’t be a accident either”!

—By an anonymous humorist