I can't believe I didn't think of this first:
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, squire: 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?
- Log in to post comments
That puts things in perspective. Why was there no Intelligent Design in 1970? Because Monty Python's Flying Circus would have gone after it with mad glee, and the results would be comedy classics we'd be enjoying these decades later.
Ah, a t.o classic! (With a nod to the original MP classic)
I can't believe I didn't think of this first:
According to the Google archive, there were also suggestions for a Cheese Shop Sketch take-off on the same theme, but I can't find a fully worked-out version. Go for it ;-).
Funny.
Related, did people see Elliott Sober's article in the Quarterly Review of Biology? What Is Wrong With Intelligent Design?
I think it will be of itnerest to you John, though the conclusion is hardly surprising.
Umm...I think there were the beginnings of Intelligent Design back then as its proponents began to come together...but the Monty Python sketch "Twit of the Year" caused ID to be put on a back burner.
I wrote a "dead theory sketch" for a Christmas party a few years ago. Actually, I wrote it in the Christmas party. We were drunk.
Bob
They should do a live action version of this.
There's lots of good stuff at Chez Watt. Just google it.
For example:
That left me wondering just what Ignorance would look like if personified. Bleached blonde, no doubt. Good company too, I suppose, since Ignorance is bliss.
This might explain why creationists are so reluctant to give up their Ignorance in the face of reason.