 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Dear Sir:
As a believer in evolution, but also a believer in the divine, I find your comparison of a fake theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to another absurd theory, Intelligent Design, as laughable as intelligent design itself. Though invalid, intelligent design deserves discussion, perhaps in a philosophy class rather than a science class. I think what I am trying to say is that you are doing a disservice to reasonable debate. Yours, [xxxxxxxxxxxx], University of Utah.
The Church of the FSM is always looking for content. Details here
The Church is funded entirely by your purchases of FSM merchandise. Thank you for your support.
An elaborate spoof on Intelligent Design, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is neither too elaborate nor too spoofy to succeed in nailing the fallacies of ID. It's even wackier than Jonathan Swift's suggestion that the Irish eat their children as a way to keep them from being a burden, and it may offend just as many people, but Henderson, described elsewhere as a 25-year-old "out-of-work physics major," puts satire to the same serious use that Swift did. Oh, yes, it is very funny. -- Scientific American
Purchase from Amazon.com
Add these buttons to your site:
Bobby's Blog
Contact Bobby: Contact Me
 |
 |
“As a believer in evolution, but also a believer in the divine, I find your comparison of a fake theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to another absurd theory, Intelligent Design, as laughable as intelligent design itself. Though invalid, intelligent design deserves discussion, perhaps in a philosophy class rather than a science class. I think what I am trying to say is that you are doing a disservice to reasonable debate. Yours, [xxxxxxxxxxxx], University of Utah.”
.
Woooooh there matie!!!
Please dont be pushing ID onto us Philosophers that is like me dumping my shit in your garden instead of my own!
.
In Philosophy we are told we should question everything, now this does not go hand in hand with faith, and as ID’s greatest and only real point is faith we tend to smash heads over it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
ID might have a place in a philosophy class, but not in the form its present form. Currently ID is nothing more that Creationism with a flimsy wrapping of pseudoscience. If it can be discussed on terms of any potential intelligence with the ability to create or design life, not just the Judeo-Christian god, then it would have a place.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Perhaps, people should visit the creationist site where scientists are specifically referred to as the “Enemy” (with a capital E) amongst other things.
Followers are encouraged to take on the “Enemy” as the science of this “Enemy” is rubbish.
The site states that the creationists have better science ect. ect.
.
To Quote:
“But is the Christian community prepared to discuss these larger issues of philosophy and worldview? The Enemy has no plans to step aside just because we have better scientific facts than they. He is committed to getting his message out to anyone who will listen. Are you?”
Fighting Against the Forces of Darkness
http://www.icr.org/articles/view/3103/
.
Those on this site, of pastafarian worship, are continually defending agaist foul mouthed damning simply because we do not believe as others do. I don’t believe the pastafarians need to go looking to mock fund a mentalist chritians. Most of these christians, who post hate mail here do enough damage their own belief system all by themselves.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
excuse for grammar and spelling please!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What exactly is this ‘better science’, and where is their imperical evidence, peer reviewed articles, and repeatable experiments?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ the first poster.
.
We are doing a disservice to reasonable debate. Really? I’ll admit there is a bit of daftness here – that’s why I like it.
.
I can’t speak for others on this site but I would be very happy to engage you in sensible argument. I suspect most of the other posters would do likewise.
.
I like the people on this site because they don’t take themselves seriously.
.
Try it, you might enjoy life then
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“fake theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster”
Fake? fake? Attacking our beliefs?
.
“a believer in the divine”
Tell me why it is, that christians demand respect from us for their own belief system, while in the same breath deny us the right to ours?
.
Wasn’t it written somewhere (in a Book, I think)
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”
Embrace His Noodliness
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nikkiee – “do unto others…” that depends upon your interpretation of the good book.
.
I think the literal translation was ” …and if those, chosen of god, do despise and detest the unbelievers – smite them, go on, give em a good kicking. So sayeth the lord.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
or if you read the Koran – don’t strike your woman on the face, nor leave a visible mark when you admonish her.
.
Nice
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You clueless fool. Bobby is trying to say exactly what you said– that ID has no place in a science classroom, but he has some wit and a sense of humor.
PL&P!!!
RAmen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This person seems reasonably reasonable, in my opinion. Go UofU!
ID is a significantly more scientific proposal than Creationism, and believe it or not it is a separate argument. The FSM more closely mimics creationism than it does ID.
Creationism is the attempt to prove that the bible is a literal and accurate portrayal of history. It was doomed to fail from the start. Intelligent Design, for the most part, does not deny that evolution occurs at some level but insists that evolution and pure chance alone cannot fully account for the complexity and diversity of life found on Earth. The main arguments for this are that a) All life seems to function on essentially the same principles, which might suggest the ’style’ of a designer, b) Many life-forms appear to be ‘irreducibly complex’, meaning that the systems within it are codependent and could not have come about one at time, c) The holes that exist in the fossil record suggest the supposed ‘missing links’ may not exist at all, and d) The chances of everything being ‘just right’ for life to come about are too infinitesimally small to just be a coincidence. Intelligent Design argues that something else must have helped the process along.
Intelligent Design has some measure of validity as an intellectual theory, in my opinion, but that doesn’t make it science–just as neither Pastafarianism nor Last Thursdayism can be disproved. It makes the argument that complex things cannot come about by themselves (watchmaker arg.), and attempts to get rid of the problem by blaming the complexity on an infinitely more complex being. It argues that each piece of the finished product of evolution cannot perform its function without the other pieces, forgetting that the END function of a mutation may not necessarily be the same as the INITIAL function that caused it to be spread.
If life had a common origin as proposed by evolution, then it stands to reason that all life would have similar mechanisms. And of course there are holes in the fossil record, considering the slim chances of having the perfect conditions for their creation. But it does occasionally happen.
Just like life might occasionally happen. The ‘just right’ argument assumes that it’s going to be a form of life that will be similar to us that we will recognize, when it may wind up being something entirely different because it evolved in entirely different conditions. I think it’s also important to consider that an infinitesimally small chance is still nonzero, and if it hadn’t happened then we wouldn’t have been around to marvel about how small a chance it really was.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0