Skip navigation

James Barlow asked a good question down in the comments, which I thought was worth promoting to the top level.

Anyone got any ideas for completing this Foxworthy-esque statement:

You’re probably shilling for the Discovery Institute if. . .

Some suggestions:

  • You say the words “specified complexity” with a straight face.
  • You believe that a “Darwinist conspiracy” is keeping Intelligent Design out of the peer-reviewed journals.
  • Every claim you make has already been dissected at Talk Origins.

Further completions welcome!

3 Comments

  1. I don’t get all this “you‘re probably shilling” stuff. I collect massive checks from the DI, but even I sometimes need a checklist to reassure my superiors and allies that I’m truly among the frozen chosen. So here we go: I congratulate myself when I open a jar of peanut butter and there’s no new life in it. I see that most of my jeans are scattered on the floor, and apply the “design inference” to conclude that, because the Universe has an intelligent creator, my underwear must be there too. I have an aversion to people named Steve. I think antibiotic resistance is a visible manifestation of God’s will (dammit). Actually, I think it’s my own special kind of evolution and support my position with an unparalleled ability to ask biased questions. I figure it must be sunny out because… a rainy day would have implications that are unacceptable for many people’s dearly held picnic plans. last month’s Gallup poll said most Americans believe it’s sunny. “rain-ists” won’t agree to debate me in the Thunderdome, which is a much better arena than any scientific journal (see also). For all of the above reasons, I believe meteorologists should have to “report the controversy” rather than say it’s raining. Frankly, I think I’ve amply demonstrated why we should all go sign up to work for DI. So bow down, bitches, or you physicists will have to quit seeking elegant descriptions of the the universe because assuming regularity = assuming God, and economists and zoologists can’t reason about altruism because evolutionary game theory HEY uh LOOK A FIRE ENGINE. Argument by fire engine is encouraged here at DI. Finally, as a strong DI supporter, I find that this site describes ID even more lucidly than our own blags. Therefore, I’m happy to report that Blake pwnz0red Michael Egnor in the Google rankings for “egnor design inference”; in fact, Blake’s sympathizers seem to r00l the first 20 or so hits. I believe this is in part because this upstanding creation science blog gave its links — and therefore its hits and PageRank — to exegises of Egnor rather than the man himself. d00d, clevar.


  2. I don’t get all this “you
    might shilling” stuff. I collect massive checks from the DI, but even I sometimes need a checklist to reassure my superiors and allies
    that I’m truly among the frozen chosen. So here we go:

    I congratulate myself when I open a jar of peanut butter and there’s no new life in it.
    I see that most of my jeans are scattered on the floor, and apply the “design inference” to conclude that, because the Universe has an intelligent creator, my underwear must be there too.
    I have an aversion to people named Steve.
    I think antibiotic resistance
    is a visible manifestation of God’s will (dammit).
    Actually, I think it’s my own special kind of evolution
    and support my position with an unparalleled ability to ask biased questions.

    I figure it must be sunny out because…
    a rainy day would have implications
    that are unacceptable for many people’s dearly held picnic plans.
    last month’s Gallup poll said most Americans believe it’s sunny.
    “rain-ists” won’t agree to debate me
    in the Thunderdome, which is a much better arena than any scientific journal (see also).

    For all of the above reasons, I believe meteorologists should have to “report the controversy” rather than say it’s raining.

    Frankly, I think I’ve amply demonstrated why we should all go sign up to work for DI. So bow down, bitches, or you physicists will have to quit seeking elegant descriptions of the the universe (because assuming regularity = assuming God) and economists and zoologists can’t reason about altruism (because evolutionary game theory HEY uh LOOK A FIRE ENGINE). We encourage argument by fire engine here at DI.
    Finally, as a strong DI supporter, I find that this site describes ID even more lucidly than our own blags. Therefore, I’m happy to report that Blake pwnz0red Michael Egnor in the Google rankings for “egnor design inference”; in fact, Blake’s sympathizers seem to r00l the first 20 or so hits. I believe this is in part because this upstanding creation science blog gave its links — and therefore its hits and PageRank — to exegises of Egnor
    rather than the man himself. d00d, clevar.

    • Jkrehbiel
    • Posted Sunday, 29 April 2007 at 19:25 pm
    • Permalink

    You use the word Darwinism.

    You can say there must be a design reason for 1000 choking deaths a year due to lousy design of the air intake/ piehole.

    Your entire logical toolkit consists of the argument from ignorance, appeal to authority, strawmen,….