ID theory - stolen

Stolen!
Look not to get into an argument about the merits of the either ID
theory or Darwin, but the below is not bad.
This is taken from the Geology group.
dave


"Beagle" wrote in message
news:1134720077.598392.326350@f14g2000cwb.

But if you're going to make these little sketches up, why not be a bit
more entertaining? You know, returning a dead parrot to a 'boutique'
and claiming it couldn't possibly evolved from bleedin' dinosaurs...


Stolen!
Look not to get into an argument about the merits of the either ID
theory or Darwin, but the below is not bad.
dave


"Beagle" wrote in message
news:1134720077.598392.326350@f14g2000cwb.

But if you're going to make these little sketches up, why not be a bit
more entertaining? You know, returning a dead parrot to a 'boutique'
and claiming it couldn't possibly evolved from bleedin' dinosaurs...


Customer: Hello. I wish to complain about this so-called 'scientific
theory' what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very
establishment.

Salesman: Oh yes, 'Intelligent Design'. What, uh... what's wrong with
it?

Customer: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. Its vacuous,
that's what's wrong with it!

Salesman: No, no, uh... what we need now is to 'teach the
controversy'...

Customer: Look matey, I know an empty 'argument from incredulity' when
I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

Salesman: No, no, it's not empty: it's just being elaborated.
Remarkable theory, 'Intelligent Design', innit, eh? I mean, just look
at all these books and articles: millions and millions of words...!

Customer: The verbiage don't enter into it, my lad. It's stone dead.
It's a non-starter. Empirically untestable, it belongs in metaphysics.
This 'theory' makes no predictions; has no contribution to make beyond
extended polemics; and can't even be honest about who it thinks the
'Designer'
was.

Bereft of all logical and epistemological credibility, it has no
scientific status! If certain right-wing and fundamentalist
pressure-groups hadn't hit upon it as a way of opposing decades of
uncomfortable scientific and social progress, it'd be pushing up
daisies! It's off the table. It's kicked the waste-paper bucket. THIS
IS A NON-THEORY!

Salesman: Well, I'd better replace it then. [takes a quick peek around]
Sorry, squi looks like that's all we've got...

Customer: I see, I see. I get the picture.

Salesman: I've got a piece of coal that looks quite a bit like a human
tibia, if you squint at it...

Customer: Pray, is it part of a theory that unifies the paleontological
and biological sciences and leads to a powerful understanding of
observed homologies and the nested hierarchy of life?

Salesman: Not really.

Customer: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT FOR DARWINISM THEN, IS
IT?

----------

That's great :-) It certainly raised a smile here.

Jeanette

Dave Gerecke wrote in message
. ..
Stolen!
Look not to get into an argument about the merits of the either ID
theory or Darwin, but the below is not bad.
This is taken from the Geology group.
dave


Customer: Hello. I wish to complain about this so-called 'scientific
theory' what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very
establishment.

Salesman: Oh yes, 'Intelligent Design'. What, uh... what's wrong with
it?

Customer: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. Its vacuous,
that's what's wrong with it!

Salesman: No, no, uh... what we need now is to 'teach the
controversy'...

Customer: Look matey, I know an empty 'argument from incredulity' when
I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

Salesman: No, no, it's not empty: it's just being elaborated.
Remarkable theory, 'Intelligent Design', innit, eh? I mean, just look
at all these books and articles: millions and millions of words...!

Customer: The verbiage don't enter into it, my lad. It's stone dead.
It's a non-starter. Empirically untestable, it belongs in metaphysics.
This 'theory' makes no predictions; has no contribution to make beyond
extended polemics; and can't even be honest about who it thinks the
'Designer'
was.

Bereft of all logical and epistemological credibility, it has no
scientific status! If certain right-wing and fundamentalist
pressure-groups hadn't hit upon it as a way of opposing decades of
uncomfortable scientific and social progress, it'd be pushing up
daisies! It's off the table. It's kicked the waste-paper bucket. THIS
IS A NON-THEORY!

Salesman: Well, I'd better replace it then. [takes a quick peek around]
Sorry, squi looks like that's all we've got...

Customer: I see, I see. I get the picture.

Salesman: I've got a piece of coal that looks quite a bit like a human
tibia, if you squint at it...

Customer: Pray, is it part of a theory that unifies the paleontological
and biological sciences and leads to a powerful understanding of
observed homologies and the nested hierarchy of life?

Salesman: Not really.

Customer: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT FOR DARWINISM THEN, IS
IT?

----------

Very funny! I need to watch more Monty Python!

Sandy

"Dave Gerecke" wrote in message
. ..
Stolen!
Look not to get into an argument about the merits of the either ID
theory or Darwin, but the below is not bad.
This is taken from the Geology group.
dave


"Beagle" wrote in message
news:1134720077.598392.326350@f14g2000cwb.

But if you're going to make these little sketches up, why not be a bit
more entertaining? You know, returning a dead parrot to a 'boutique'
and claiming it couldn't possibly evolved from bleedin' dinosaurs...


Stolen!
Look not to get into an argument about the merits of the either ID
theory or Darwin, but the below is not bad.
dave


"Beagle" wrote in message
news:1134720077.598392.326350@f14g2000cwb.

But if you're going to make these little sketches up, why not be a bit
more entertaining? You know, returning a dead parrot to a 'boutique'
and claiming it couldn't possibly evolved from bleedin' dinosaurs...


Customer: Hello. I wish to complain about this so-called 'scientific
theory' what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very
establishment.

Salesman: Oh yes, 'Intelligent Design'. What, uh... what's wrong with
it?

Customer: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. Its vacuous,
that's what's wrong with it!

Salesman: No, no, uh... what we need now is to 'teach the
controversy'...

Customer: Look matey, I know an empty 'argument from incredulity' when
I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

Salesman: No, no, it's not empty: it's just being elaborated.
Remarkable theory, 'Intelligent Design', innit, eh? I mean, just look
at all these books and articles: millions and millions of words...!

Customer: The verbiage don't enter into it, my lad. It's stone dead.
It's a non-starter. Empirically untestable, it belongs in metaphysics.
This 'theory' makes no predictions; has no contribution to make beyond
extended polemics; and can't even be honest about who it thinks the
'Designer'
was.

Bereft of all logical and epistemological credibility, it has no
scientific status! If certain right-wing and fundamentalist
pressure-groups hadn't hit upon it as a way of opposing decades of
uncomfortable scientific and social progress, it'd be pushing up
daisies! It's off the table. It's kicked the waste-paper bucket. THIS
IS A NON-THEORY!

Salesman: Well, I'd better replace it then. [takes a quick peek around]
Sorry, squi looks like that's all we've got...

Customer: I see, I see. I get the picture.

Salesman: I've got a piece of coal that looks quite a bit like a human
tibia, if you squint at it...

Customer: Pray, is it part of a theory that unifies the paleontological
and biological sciences and leads to a powerful understanding of
observed homologies and the nested hierarchy of life?

Salesman: Not really.

Customer: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT FOR DARWINISM THEN, IS
IT?

----------

In article , Sandy
wrote:

Very funny! I need to watch more Monty Python!

I mentioned to an English colleague that a friend's carpet python,
Talis (RB), had shed his skin for the first time. My colleague inquired
if that defined the Full Monty Python.