Bobby,
I don’t understand. I have recently read your article to the KC school board. You seem to be arguing that the FSM created the earth. I believe the God of the Bible created the earth. Your argument states that schools should teach evolution, intelligent design, and FSM creation.
Both the Christian belief and yours state that something intellegent created the universe (and it didn’t just happen by accident). Is the spaghetti monster not intelligent? Is that the argument for teaching both.
The teaching of Intelligent Design does not promote my God any more than yours or anybody elses for that matter. It shouldn’t even promote a god as the creator. All Intelliegent Design promotes is another theory about the beginning of the universe. That as complex as this universe is that it could have been (in theory) created.
Your letter gives the impression that you want your religion to be taught. I beleive that is wrong. We may have different beliefs about how the universe came into existence but we both believe in Intelligent Design.
Thank you for your time,
-GM
| 
clearly some people just don’t get it
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/satire
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Not only do they not GET IT.. they lie about it.
“The teaching of Intelligent Design does not promote my God…”
Utter BS. ID http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design is a “christian movement”.. I hesitate to use the word “conspiracy”, because of what it has come to represent.. but it IS a conspiracy, by the “christian” population, to introduce religion into the school systems. Any denial of this is ridiculous.
It was “founded” by the Discovery Institude, http://www.discovery.org/ which is clearly a conservative christian group. Yet they claim that they don’t promote one religion over another.
I find it troubling that any rational thinking person, or group of persons would allow such junk science to infiltrate our schools, which are designed to educate based on FACT, not on superstition and myth.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
ID was specifically, and with careful thought, formulated to promote Judeo-Christian philosophy.
Phillip Johnson, founder of the ID movement, puts it thusly:
-”Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.” 1/10/2003, American Family Radio
-”This isn’t really, and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and philosophy.” 11/30/1996, World Magazine
-”If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this….We call our strategy the ‘wedge.’” P. Johnson, “Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds”, Pages 91, 92
-”The objective (of the wedge strategy) is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to ‘the truth’ of the Bible and then ‘the question of sin’ and finally ‘introduced to Jesus.’” Church & State, April 1999
Seems pretty clear.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Pastafarianism, which really means the reality of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, before the academic world and into the schools. This isn’t really, and never has been a debate about science. Its about beer volcanoes and Stripper Factories. If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of FSM by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends We have developed a strategy for doing this….We call our strategy the “noodle”. The objective (of the noodle strategy) is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of FSM vs. the non-pasta based ideologies. From there people are introduced to the truth of The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and then the question of pirates and finally, introduced to Pastafarians.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As a loyal devotee of His Pastaness, I hate to break it to my fellow posters but “intelligent design” is not particularly a Christian movment. The argument can be found in many religious traditions. Before “ID” caught on as a tag, it was called “Natural Theology” — a tradition in the west stretching back to the Dark Ages, and even some Platonic dialogues. If you’re interested in other traditions that have espoused intelligent design, see the Nyaya school of Indian philosophy.
At any rate, let’s be clear about one thing: ID is religion. If you don’t like that title, it’s theology. If you don’t like that title, just be clear: it’s not science. For ID to be a scientific hypothesis, it has to give rise to testable implications. Something has to follow from the fact that the world was created by an intelligent designer, and moreover there must be some observable state that, if observed, would prove ID wrong (all good emperical theories are falsifiable in this manner).However, NOTHING follows from the fact that the world was created intelligently and there is no possible observation that could prove it wrong. It is a completely untestable hypothesis. Natural selection, on the other hand, does yeild testible implications, i.e., change enviorntmental factors that place survival pressures on organisms and one will see evolution. It’s been confirmed time and again in the labratory and in the wild.
For classic refutations of ID, see Hume’s Discoruse on Natural Religion, and for older criticisms, see any Vedanta critique of the Nyaya natural theology argument. The problem with ID is that the emperical evidence does not uniquely point to the hypothesis that there was an intelligent designer. Even if we stick to the hypothesis that complex objects are created by intelligence, it could have been a comitee of creators that made the world, and there’s no reason to think that they are good either — not based on the evidence that is.
At any rate, if I was to believe in ID, i would go with FSM — it’s far yummier.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Do any of them look at this site once they have written their letter do you think?
Religion serves two sorts of people: Priests and Kings(presidents, etc)
This one serves as a joke.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“The teaching of Intelligent Design does not promote my God”
if creationism does not promtoe any god, whts the problem with teaching FSM creation in schools??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Amen. FSM could be taught right before lunch on spaghetti day in the cafeteria, thereby reinforcing the noodley thoughts.
Pasta is so much more filling than grapejuice and crackers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The idea that Intelligent Design does not promote any God at all is rediculous. Of course it does. Intelligent Design by definition is a hypothesis that proposes something or someone designed all life on Earth. This something or someone is by definition a God.
This warrants a “no duh”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Philosopher wrote:
“As a loyal devotee of His Pastaness, I hate to break it to my fellow posters but “intelligent design” is not particularly a Christian movment. The argument can be found in many religious traditions.”
-
1) Please see my earlier post.
2) Many religions have ‘revealed’ scripture: this does not means that the New Testament is ‘not particularly a Christian’ work. The claim that philosophy of design in other religious traditions absolves ID of an evangelical Christian nature is a non-sequitur.
THIS movement, at THIS PARTICULAR TIME, as funded by a Young-Earth Creationist who favors scrapping the Bill of Rights and imposing Mosaic law, and as promoted by fundamentalist evangelical Christians, is ‘particularly a Christian’ work.
Just sayin’. :-P
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I guess all these Christians still don’t get it. The point is that religion should not be taught in science classes. Why?
1) religion=BELIEFS
2) science=FACTS
So maybye, just maybye, there is a god. But that would still not be a fact, because there is no certainty about it. Therefore everything in religeon is belief, and everything in science is fact.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Teaching intelligent design does not promote god? Wait you actually believe this!
Two words: Discovery institute.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
haha. did you really totally miss the point? it’s a joke. it’s making a statement about why it’s stupid to teach things other than evolution in schools. smack your forehead and say you understand. honestly. by all means…don’t take it seriously. no one ACTUALLY believes spaghetti created the world. it’s the principle of the thing. please try to recognise these types of sarcastic points in the future. uffdah.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“no one ACTUALLY believes spaghetti created the world. it’s the principle of the thing. please try to recognise these types of sarcastic points in the future.”
WHAT?! Damn you for a fool, sir! There shall be no Volcanoes of Beer for you in OUR noodly Heaven! Denying the Almighty Pasta Lord will get you whacked with a wet noodle for all eternity in the fiery abyss of Christian Heaven, sir! Repent and accept His meatballiness into your heart so ye might be saved. Ramen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
An intesting contruct from a comic book… Hellblazer (with John Constantine as the main character) goes as follows.
Religions are based on faith. Faith is belief without proof. (There is a difference the believing and knowing.) Therefore knowlege excludes faith and cancels out religion.
Just another way of looking at it.
I like the FSM concept. And I believe in God.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Bobby,
I don’t understand. I have recently read your article to the KC school board. You seem to be arguing that the FSM created the earth. (etcetcetc)
This poor clumpball thinks the FSM is a serious, threatening, competing religion. He takes it all seriously! Doesn’t realize it’s a spoof.
Taking jokes seriously seems to be a common feature among the fastidiously religious. Maybe that’s why they’re so obsessed by sadistic myths like hell and devils. Their senses of humor left them long ago.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“science=FACTS”
I have to disagree with you there. It clearly states in GotFSM (Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) that most of the things taught in science class are theories. The first one that comes to mind is gravity, which is explain in GotFSM that we know the particals are attracted but we don’t know why. So telling someone that gravity exists is a fact, but beyond that it’s really just theory.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“I have to disagree with you there. It clearly states in GotFSM…”
Even Pastafarians invoke their religious books imposing facts!!
Here’s an example: A christian thinks that the existence of god is fact. An atheist thinks that the non-existence of god is fact, when in truth, both are beliefs that are not based on proof.
However, I am an atheist because in my opinion, religion is a hinderance. Just think about that: Imagine all the things we could do if we weren’t busy worshiping some “God”, Think about all the conflict there wouldn’t have been without it, think what kind of freedom we would have, not being oppressed by religious fanatics.
I could go on forever, but i think I’ll stop here and let you people think about it for a while.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
what? FSM didn’t create the Earth? well then at least the moon? what, no? but surely the stripper factory is still up there? if not, then I have nothing to live for.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The word Science means “an organized body of knowledge based on observation and experiment.”
There is no way anyone could present anything to prove the Universe just happened, or big banged itself, or that God created it.
The other thing is that even if you were there at the beginning, in some way shape or form being a spectator watching the universe being created, it is only your perception. It is subjective. Once you try to communicate it, you are communicating something subjective. Even if you present evidence to someone, how they take it is subjective.
What most people take for truth is what people agree is true. So agreement is reality. If the universe were down to 1 person, whatever he believed is what would be true. As you increase the players in the game of life, it’s majority agreement that makes up truth.
Going back to perception, after you perceive something, you make a decision about it and you know it. That’s the key part of it all. So the highest truth for oneself is just knowing.
You start to walk down this road and we are talking more about philosophy–the love and pursuit of wisdom. Religion can be part of that, so long as it is honest in what it claims. Science should be the same way. Science can be dogmatic and downright fanatic. The theory of evolution for example, is just a theory. Yet we teach it in school. Kids being skitzy and not sitting still in class is a disease, which is really only a theory, yet we make billions of dollars on the drugs for it.
One writer wrote about religious fanatics. How about scientists, engineers and so forth that created nuclear missles. They are only useful in a society that craves suicide. Examples of these abound.
I don’t in the end think it’s a problem to teach that theories exist. Say the big bang or God. Go ahead and teach both. While you’re at it, throw in FSM.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
CB Oct 15th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
“The theory of evolution for example, is just a theory. Yet we teach it in school.”
.
Oh please….not again….*falls asleep*
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ CB-
Do you have a fucking clue what you’re talking about?
Evolution is a theory, but one with evidence to back it up. I can’t disprove a god. But if there is one it’s nothing like we could imagine and, ipso facto, nothing like any of the religions say. So by that logic religion is counter science and counter Philosophy. It puts a lead round your neck. You can go anywhere you like till you pull on the leash.
Science says “Break the leash! Leave your yard! Go explore and find out for your self! Chase rabbits and sniff trees!” it’s the challenge of finding the truth that keeps the enlightened going. Because true enlightenment is about knowing you’ll never understand everything but not giving up anyway.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Pluto – hooray!
Just wondering, but has anybody ever been told by anyone that they “don’t believe in gravity”? That’s also only a theory…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
*shakes Nikkiee’s shoulder gently*
It’s OK, I think he has gone! :D
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Here are your misconceptions
1. science says the unverse was made by chance, wrong, it simply states the the universe follows certain laws and rules, such as physics. Nothing in science says it was by dumb luck that the universe exists, where do people keep getting that
2. if ID is taught, it will be teaching both theories. wrong. How do you teach ID without focusing in on at least one religion? you have to go a little deeper than “god did it”, you have to say how and why, something that is different in every religion, so if ID is taught then many would only teach the christian version of it because they are christian and they think its the only theory out there unless we let them know it isn’t, this is called the false-concensus effect; you guys have no clue that there are other ideas out there in the world until it smacks you in the face.
3. We want our religion to be taught, we don’t. Evolution, abiogenesis, and the big bang are the leading theories supported by the evidence. And if you teach ID with those, you cannot leave out details that pertain to certain religions as stated up in #2, we simply want the FSM to be taught on equal level with the christian version because if your religion is taught in schools, then ours should be too, so if people stop trying to get christianity taught then we will stop trying to get FSMism taught alongside it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What we believe in, is Unintelligent Design. It was an accident and that is why it is so different from the ID theory. Yours is that he meant to make everything like that, our theory is that it was all an accident and that’s why it’s so screwed up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This person has the same initials as me. It is not me! I swear!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0