I’ve stumbled across your site and I have decided to leave my opinions of it out of this email. I do, however, have a few questions.
In the letter sent by you to the Kansas School Board you state:
“It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Pastafarianism fall under the term “Intelligent Design” and is not a third theory? I could also be mistaken in the fact that I thought the idea of teaching “Intelligent Design” was to include the existence of one or multiple creators as a theory, which would include Pastafarianism. Please correct me if this is not the case.
If I am correct in that Pastafarianism is part of “Intelligent Design” and not it’s own theory I still don’t see it being mentioned in schools. The reason being is it’s size and knowledge of it. I’m sure teachers will briefly discuss different sub-theories of “Intelligent Design”, but will stick with the most common such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and maybe a few other well know sub-theories. It would be almost impossible to include every sub-theory out there and I’m afraid yours may be left out. If in time your sub-theory grows in popularity, maybe, but not yet.
If I’m wrong in that Pastafarianism is part of “Intelligent Design” and not it’s own theory then please let me know in full detail of where I have made my mistake.
Sincerely,
Clayton
*update*
I sometimes reply to these types of emails. I sent Clayton this response, which I thought was very polite:
“Hey, FSM is more popular than you think. We have more support than the other Intelligent Design theory (but less money). I posted your message up on the site (it will publish oct 1, in the criticism section. I invite you to read the responses, and feel free to respond to those, etc. Later,
-bobby”
Clayton responded with this:
Actually the email I sent you, if you mind taking a look, has a copyright notice at the bottom. Posting it on your website would be in clear violation of copyright law. I don’t wish to take legal action, but I will protect my rights.
P.S. You also did not answer my question which leads me to believe I am right in my assumptions.
Sincerely,
Clayton
I was shocked. To be fair, Clayton’s email did arrive with this footer:
Copyright 2007 © Clayton XXXXXXX. All rights Reserved.
(I edited out his last name.)
My reply:
“Hey tard, sending an email – like a letter – creates an implied license for certain uses. I am well within my rights to share the email YOU SENT ME with whoever I like. If I was a dick, I could have posted your full name and email address, but I didn’t. If you’d like to take legal action, be my guest.
Sincerely,
Bobby Henderson
Copyright FOREVER! © Bobby Henderson, All rights Reserved, especially ones I made up.”
What an asshat! I’m not exactly sure what an asshat is, but it’s my new favorite word. Also, check this out:
.
http://www.jeffcohenstudio.com/bagoftoast/bagoftoast75.jpg
.
Clayton (Your post wasn’t up when I posted :(
“ID states that the being which designed is intelligent, not the design itself.”
.
On what basis/evidence is this *designer* presumed to be intelligent?
SaucyWench Sep 29th, 2007 at 5:12 am
“Also, check this out:”
.
http://www.jeffcohenstudio.com/bagoftoast/bagoftoast75.jpg
.
Hahahahaha….love it Saucy :)
Bookmarked!
RAmen
Clayton, i am preasantly surprised you came back to the site, if not a little shocked. Clayton, i will put this to you very simply, evolution is not UD. Unintelligence would require a certain amount of IQ, say a minimum of 1, being considered dumb, or unintelligent as the definition goes. The thing about evolution is, it’s natural, without intelligence at all, and not the antonym of it. I guess you could describe it as more ‘anti-inteligent’. Therefore, a flawed deity, like the fsm, is indeed different to the supposedly flawless deity God, and different to the lack of god or a designer that is evolution. Clearly 3 theories, no?
dear Clayton.
You fail to see why FSMism is neither ID or evolutionary theory.
ID is an intelligent designer that uses his intellegence to create the universe as we know it. (that is, quite fcked up)
Evolution exists of the 2 hottest squirrels dating each others, thus the next generation of squirels is even hotter.
FSMism is about a intellegent designer that uses utter creativity gained trough getting drunk to create a world, and then when he got sober, he fixed it up as good as he could by making fossils & stuff.
.
Now you might go thinking that this means FSM is also intelligent design, but that is wrong.
1. The design for the world was clearly NOT intelligent. (google on Paris Hilton if you want to be sure.)
2. GOD/ALLAH/THE ALMIGHTY MILK CAN did NOT change the world themselves later on. FSM did. Anyone who ever played an online game will know why this makes FSM superior. He provides updates!!! First we had only mountains, midgets and tree´s. now we have dinosaur bones and changed science results.
3. FSMism has evidence to back it up. This evidence is in the form of a graph. now lets take a look at the bible, HEY, there´s no graph!!!. And there´s more, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO GRAPH IN THE QURAN.
4. Intellegent people who are full of themselves (I.E. god) often forget to make fun. this is why there is (almost) no mention of pirates in the bible. BUT!!! the gospel of the flying spaghetti monster (under copyright!) states a lost of tales about pirates.
.
I hope your mind is able to comprehend. And don´t forget, something as magnificent as pirates cannot be the result of pure randomness, thus evolution is NOT true.
.
(sry for being addicted to CAPS sometimes, i just love it, its how his noodliness made me, he was drunk while doing that)
.
.
RAmen
Yarr
RAmen Angryy :)
.
@Clayton
Betime in my part of the world. I do hope you plan to stick around a for a bit. :)
RAmen
I’m normally a supporter of Evolution, but I have a problem.
After millions of generations, how come Squirrels aren’t amazingly hot?
.
Unless of course Keira Knightly and Beyonce are highly evolved Squirrels, in which case I see your point.
Just had to tell people this.
I was watching a show earlier, of these guys who go crab fishing. One of them slipped off the boat, and with odds of apparantly 1000 to 1, he was saved. When interviewed later, he thanked god he was saved. Now if god does have this masterplan, why didn’t he tell god he was a fucknozzle for making him fall off the boat?
Same thing i heard i a ricky gervais skit. Before Hurricane Katrina, the news reporters were interviewing this redneck that refused to evacuate. He said “I’m staying here because i know god will pretect us”. Who does he think sent the hurricane in the first place? Peace and mercy god my arse.
Because once squirrels reached a level of utter hotness, they decided to only date ugly squirrels. They had foreseen that if they were too hot, they would distract all cardrivers and there would be way more trafic accidents.
additionally to being hot, squirrels are also smart!
I’ve clearly failed to convey what I feel ID and UD mean.
ID:
A design by an intelligent entity.
UD:
A design not of an intelligent entity.
In both contexts ‘intelligent’ is meant as sentient, or alive in some way. IQ plays little or no role. In my previous post I asked for 3rd party documentation that stated otherwise and I ask that again of you hoping that I have finally managed to convey what it is that I mean.
dear Clayton, this discussion started between You and MR henderson. Thus to me it seems but normal that any other source of information (the commodore for example) is a 3rd party.
“dear Clayton, this discussion started between You and MR henderson. Thus to me it seems but normal that any other source of information (the commodore for example) is a 3rd party.”
I suppose you have caught me on a technicality. Although, I don’t see this page as a source of documentation. How about a reputable 3rd party?
Clayton, you’ve conveyed what you mean, you’re still wrong though.
Pastafarianism claims there was an Unintelligent designer. Christianits, and all other religions claim there was an intelligent designer. Evolution conveys that there was no designer at all. Count them up, 3 theories.
My point is that however unintelligent the FSM may be, he is still an intelligent being.
Again, intelligent meaning sentient or alive. Therefore Pastafarianism must be ID.
Clayton,
I just realised what you were saying and came back to comment.
For unintelligent design, we’re talking about a level of intelligence but that level is low.
Design always implies a level of intent and for there to be intent there must be intelligence(even if low).
Evolution is a process without design or intelligence.
.
The divide between ID & UD is about the level of intelligence not its presence.
ID is a crypto-christian deceit deviously designed to try and propogate sectarian ideas dressed up as science in schools. Nothing more or less.
.
Therefore a variant of ID that explains the faults in the world by suggesting that the design agent (intelligence) is limited or careless or both (or hungover) offends the christians because if UD were true, their notion of God is not a candidate for that agent because they put their God forward as perfect.
.
UD has more observable evidence and so is the stronger scientific theory (though not very strong).
That blows apart the contrivance of the christians to portray in science lessons that there is an intelligent designer and then point out from the pulpit that it is their God.
.
The UD creator can’t be the christian god so the better theory actually excludes their beliefs.
Clayton, One last quick comment from me
“I’ve clearly failed to convey what I feel ID and UD mean.”
.
Let me get this straight:
What *you feel* ID and UD to mean???
Goodnight all :)
Thanks ۞
I see Claytons idea a bit clearer now too. I was having a little trouble with the interchangability of the terms intelligent and alive/sentient. Thinking amoebas, bacteria ect. ect. ect.
“Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Pastafarianism fall under the term “Intelligent Design” and is not a third theory?”
Yes, it is ID, but you’re being silly and don’t understand that ID has many branches.
If ID is taught in schools, I assure you that the Catholic/Christian Creation would be taught. Do you think that Catholicism is no different than Pastafarianism? If so, you’re dead wrong.
I have offered yet another parody of ID on my blog. Any suggestions on ways to incorporate Pastafarianism are welcome.
http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007/09/group-of-intellectuals-negating-godless.html
….Paris Hilton :)