Hard Light Productions Forums

Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kamikaze on October 30, 2005, 02:49:32 pm

Title: The Baseball Approach to Intelligent Design
Post by: Kamikaze on October 30, 2005, 02:49:32 pm: The following was stolen from this website: http://abstractfactory.blogspot.com/2005/10/only-debate-on-intelligent-design-that.html

Quote
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 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.

Another interesting link: http://polymathematics.typepad.com/polymath/2005/10/post.html
Title: The Baseball Approach to Intelligent Design
Post by: achtung on October 30, 2005, 03:12:51 pm: Neat :yes:
Title: The Baseball Approach to Intelligent Design
Post by: delta_7890 on October 30, 2005, 03:20:56 pm: This is all kinds of awesome.
Title: The Baseball Approach to Intelligent Design
Post by: Corsair on October 30, 2005, 04:29:43 pm: :lol:

Sending that one to my gov teacher, I am.
Title: The Baseball Approach to Intelligent Design
Post by: aldo_14 on October 30, 2005, 04:33:40 pm: :lol:

Oh, and this is henceforth to be known as my Phrase Of The Day
[q] metaphysical wankery[/q]
Title: The Baseball Approach to Intelligent Design
Post by: TrashMan on October 30, 2005, 05:25:20 pm: Wll, the thread was interesting, as were the many comments. the guys reasoning isn't perfect, but it's good.

While I never consider ID a science, I do belive in it, in a more rational and limited way...

*runs*
Title: The Baseball Approach to Intelligent Design
Post by: Jetmech Jr. on October 30, 2005, 05:46:08 pm: (http://druglord.freelsd.org/ezbounce/cmb.gif)
Title: The Baseball Approach to Intelligent Design
Post by: Nuclear1 on October 30, 2005, 07:52:13 pm: :lol:

Brilliant.
Title: The Baseball Approach to Intelligent Design
Post by: IceFire on October 30, 2005, 09:27:08 pm: Very nicely written.

:)
Title: The Baseball Approach to Intelligent Design
Post by: Solatar on October 30, 2005, 09:40:14 pm: It's both violent AND well thought out. Me likes...:D
Title: The Baseball Approach to Intelligent Design
Post by: karajorma on October 31, 2005, 01:38:30 am: Quote
Originally posted by TrashMan
While I never consider ID a science, I do belive in it, in a more rational and limited way...

You're a catholic right?
Title: The Baseball Approach to Intelligent Design
Post by: icespeed on October 31, 2005, 01:41:45 am: dun assume someone's a catholic just cos they believe in intelligent designer/s, that's religionist.
Title: The Baseball Approach to Intelligent Design
Post by: karajorma on October 31, 2005, 01:52:19 am: I'm assuming he's catholic cause he's croatian and the majority of croats are catholic.

And I've a reason for asking.
Title: The Baseball Approach to Intelligent Design
Post by: Sandwich on October 31, 2005, 02:18:29 am: :lol: Thank God He's not a scientist. :p
Title: The Baseball Approach to Intelligent Design
Post by: vyper on October 31, 2005, 02:41:37 am: Class.
Title: The Baseball Approach to Intelligent Design
Post by: aldo_14 on October 31, 2005, 04:17:36 am: Quote
Originally posted by icespeed
dun assume someone's a catholic just cos they believe in intelligent designer/s, that's religionist.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/05/creation_evolution/

Would be the point kara is about to make.

dun-dun-dun!
Title: The Baseball Approach to Intelligent Design
Post by: WMCoolmon on October 31, 2005, 05:31:52 am: That's what makes me wonder. If God is indeed all-powerful, why couldn't he have set things in motion billions of years ago? If you read the bible literally, after all, you're going to have a hard time believing in it at all, so I don't see a big problem with assuming that the whole creation deal is symbolic rather than literal, so that He wouldn't have to write a study guide for the bible to explain what "DNA" and "bacteria" are to early man.

'sides, God doesn't seem to be too big on the instant gratification thing either.
Title: The Baseball Approach to Intelligent Design
Post by: TrashMan on October 31, 2005, 05:59:32 am: Quote
Originally posted by karajorma
I'm assuming he's catholic cause he's croatian and the majority of croats are catholic.

And I've a reason for asking.

A huge majority actually...but yes, I am catholic.

I do belive in evolution, but in a way, if God created everything in the universe, including the physical and biological laws, then we were, in a way, designed....
Title: The Baseball Approach to Intelligent Design
Post by: aldo_14 on October 31, 2005, 07:25:44 am: Quote
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
That's what makes me wonder. If God is indeed all-powerful, why couldn't he have set things in motion billions of years ago? If you read the bible literally, after all, you're going to have a hard time believing in it at all, so I don't see a big problem with assuming that the whole creation deal is symbolic rather than literal, so that He wouldn't have to write a study guide for the bible to explain what "DNA" and "bacteria" are to early man.

'sides, God doesn't seem to be too big on the instant gratification thing either.

The nature of God (any form of diety/dieties) is such to preclude any possibility of disproof, anyways. (and proof, of course)

It's always been structured that way, so any sort of 'conflicting' scientific discovery can just be said to push back where God 'is'. Like....if they proved abiogenesis, then God would simply be pushed back to the big bang, etc, or abstracted as being the fundamental laws of physics, and soforth.

The main conflict over the likes of evolution is really down to Bible literalism, I think. It's also a response to the belief of certain more militant Christians that secularism and modern society is in some way immoral; largely, I guess, because the church wields less power over individuals now.

The problem these people have in particular with science is that it explains things working without God, or rather without the sort of God they've been espousing for all these years; they're basically unable to accept their particular interpretation is wrong. Science has, after all, never sought to address the existence of God, but simply to explain the world in terms of what we can see and prove to be true.

And on a side note, why do I end up posting these types of posts when really everyone knows this already.........?
Title: The Baseball Approach to Intelligent Design
Post by: karajorma on October 31, 2005, 07:33:27 am: Quote
Originally posted by aldo_14

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/05/creation_evolution/

Would be the point kara is about to make.

dun-dun-dun!

There you go stealing my thunder again :p

But yes that was the point I was angling towards.

Quote
Originally posted by TrashMan
I do belive in evolution, but in a way, if God created everything in the universe, including the physical and biological laws, then we were, in a way, designed....

Then I presume from now on you'll be arguing for evolution next time one of the evolution vs creationism threads comes up or staying silent right?
Title: The Baseball Approach to Intelligent Design
Post by: Stealth on October 31, 2005, 08:48:28 am: a good waste of the 45 seconds it took to read that.
Title: The Baseball Approach to Intelligent Design
Post by: vyper on October 31, 2005, 08:52:02 am: Ah quit yer greetin...
Title: The Baseball Approach to Intelligent Design
Post by: aldo_14 on October 31, 2005, 08:58:56 am: Quote
Originally posted by Stealth
a good waste of the 45 seconds it took to read that.

So you decided to waste another 45 seconds typing a whiny post about it because you don't have a sense of humour?
Title: The Baseball Approach to Intelligent Design
Post by: Inquisitor on October 31, 2005, 09:17:24 am: I think it's brilliant :)

On a related note, I found some essays I wrote on the subject 10+ years ago, as soon as I figure out how to open them and conevrt them, i wonder if they will stand muster and make the same sense that made to me when I wrote them in graduate school all those years ago.

Maybe I will post them somewhere...
Title: The Baseball Approach to Intelligent Design
Post by: Ford Prefect on October 31, 2005, 09:41:02 am: Forty-five seconds? Why is everyone else so much faster at reading than I am? It takes me years to finish books.
Title: The Baseball Approach to Intelligent Design
Post by: aldo_14 on October 31, 2005, 10:27:04 am: *pats Ford on head*

Because you're special.
Title: The Baseball Approach to Intelligent Design
Post by: pyro-manic on October 31, 2005, 11:01:37 am: Heh. Very good. :yes:
Title: The Baseball Approach to Intelligent Design
Post by: WMCoolmon on October 31, 2005, 12:39:10 pm: Quote
Originally posted by Stealth
a good waste of the 45 seconds it took to read that.

I think it's one of those things that you can read it and choose to learn from it, or read it and choose to ignore it and waste the time you spend reading it.

I don't hear Christians disputing the accuracy of carbon dating or whatever when science supports a biblical story rather than disputes it. (Or any other religion, for that matter.) Skepticism is good, unless it's because a person doesn't feel like listening.