i don’t understand

Published August 9th, 2006 by Bobby Henderson

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



27 Responses to “i don’t understand”

1 2 3 4
  1. Peter says:

    clearly some people just don’t get it

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/satire

  2. HeathenAngel says:

    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.

  3. Midget in Pirate Regalia says:

    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.

  4. Squirnt says:

    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.

  5. philosopher says:

    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.

  6. Leah says:

    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.

  7. Sam says:

    “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??

  8. alfredo says:

    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.

1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply