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.”
Wow ۞. An actual ‘intelligent’ response. heh
Despite the known acronyms of ID and UD and the confusion of their meaning I think we are still dealing with 2 main theories. Let’s forget ID and UD for a minute. We either:
1) evolved
2) we were created by a sentient entity
I understand the purpose of Pastafarianism is to prevent religious practices and teachings in school. Although I’m sure many here would argue that to perpetuate it’s ideals. I agree with this to an extent. Religious practices should not be taught in schools, but we should include both of the theories I listed above. Students should be informed of different religions of the world and their (very)basic belief systems with just as much time and importance in the teaching of the theory of evolution. This includes Pastafarianism if it continues to gain popularity.
If there is a third theory that does not fall under what I have listed or if you disagree with what I have said please let me know in full detail.
Clayton, there are 2 other theories.
One is oblivionism, a belief where nothing actually exists at all. With nothing designed, there is no designer, nothing.
The other is very obscure. There is science backing the theory that subatomic masses, or even perhaps atoms can dissolve in and out of existence, where to nobody knows, but it is quantum physics. The thing is, is it not possible that as a random act, everything just sort of … was. Both of these theories have no designer, or evolution.
And i am certainly not one to argue against religion being taught in schools. I mean, i aspire to teach religion and biology in senior high school. The difference is, i would NEVER mix the two up, as ID has done.
Bobby in the future when some wise ass attempts to lay “the copyright” line on you another avenue of approach is claiming fair use. I hate the see the spreading of the word slowed down.
Clayton - the evolution/sentient entity argument will always end up at “who made God” or “What happened before the big bang”
.
See Occam’s Razor;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam’s_Razor
Fucking awesome, this is why Bobby is one of my heroes!!! Although I do think u should have sent him a very elaborate response on what the difference between ID and FSM are, just so we can prove how established and complicated we are. But ur way is still awesome, if he wants a response he should come and read the responses.
@ Clayton.
This is a parody of ID. It’s not a real thoery, and it was suggested mostly to point out the flaws of Intelligent Design.
The purpose of the movement is not really to have FSM-ism taught in schools, but to keep any and all forms of ID out of the Science classroom.
Amendment: I read your last post in further detail just after I posted mine.
I agree, Intelligent Desing shuld be taught about in schools, but it shouldn’t be taught as Science. According to the Scientific theory, Evolution is the way life came about. Until evidnece of an intelligent designer is produced, this explanation is the only scientific one.
In addition to what Zankou said. An intelligent designer doesn’t have to be the christian god, that’s what many people forget.
@Clayton
You’re argument seems a bit self defeating to me (I’m surprised nobody else mentioned it, this might mean I’m wrong, oh well…). You originally said,
.
“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.”
.
Isn’t the whole movement to incorporate ID in the science classroom (yich!) based on the belief that we should “teach the controversy” (straight from the discovery institute) and “teaching all sides of the issue” (don’t know who the last one is from)? Yet you are claiming that we would only teach a small group of creation “theories” (most of which are similar to the christian view). Your reason is that they are the most popular, but if we were to teach the most popular idea, it would certainly be evolution. I really don’t appreciate your arbitrary standards, so I propose this. We could hold a vote (among science teachers, as this is going to directly affect them) to see which creation theory should be taught and give them a list of all of the creation “theories” that we know of. I’ll bet you $.48 that FSMism beats the snot out of christian creationism.
$.48?
Fourty-eight cents?
Zankou is right. The most important point is that ID isn’t science and shouldn’t be presented as though it is.
Yes there are two main branches:
1. Some sentient being created the life on earth from non-living matter.
2. It evolved.
.
Because its obvious that #2 is wrong, we’re only debating the nature and intents of the sentient being.
Consequently although you’re right that UD is a variant of ID it comes to the devastating (for xians) and unassailable conclusion that the xians are far more likely to be wrong than right.
They are clutching at straws to follow their beliefs established in a time before scientific method was matured to point out all the flapping holes in their ideas.
We can forgive people in the past for believing xianity, but not today. This is the 21st century.
@Zankou
I only bet in $.16 increments and I’m too cheap to bet more than two quarters… forty-eight cents is quite gutsy for me. Is “gutsy” a word?
Yes, “gutsy” is indeed a word.
Although, I would classify it specifically as a colloquialism.
better question: is 48 cents a bet?
………by the way, Hi Zankou *waves, what you doin’ here?
and GO DO YOUR HOMEWORK!
Clayton, I think that we are in agreement. There are surprising similarities between ID and UD. For instance they are both rather goofy and neither one has much scientific evidence to back it up. We also seem to agree that ID is if not the second best, then one of the top creation theories. In science class I was taught that the world is round. The second best theory would of course be the one that was prevalent in the middle ages, the theory that the world is flat. I was not taught the second best theory in science class. I was taught it in history class. The fact that it is the second best theory does not necessarily mean it is scientifically worth the air it takes to voice it. We do disagree on one point. You said earlier that you do not think religious practices should be taught in schools. My high school had a few religion classes, but no one was forced to take them and I hear that they were informative classes. I do not think that ID should be taught in a science classroom any more that I think the flat earth theory should be taught. It is certainly a good candidate for religion classes, but I wonder how anyone could look at the heaping mound of evidence for evolution and say that ID is equally viable from a scientific standpoint. I short, the only reason I see to teach ID or UD in a science classroom is to offer an alternative theory and that is not a good enough reason. If we did that we might as well teach people that the earth is flat and a ball of flying pasta created it. So by all means, teach ID in schools but keep it out of science class.
RAmen
.
(If I totally missed the point forgive me, but it was fun to write!)
I largely agree you Ephriam A. Jostle.
For example, the second best theory is that George W. Bush isn’t a jerk.
However you make a basic mistake there of placing the idea that the earth is flat on the same level as the idea it was created by the FSM. So yes you totally missed the point.
Clayton, your reasoning embodies the false dilemma fallacy - your two choices (’evolution’ versus ‘ID’) are not mutually exclusive.
There is a third set of creation theories: all those which neither claim that we evolved, nor claim that we were created by any sort of entity (intelligent, stupid, drunk, endowed with Noodly Appendages, or otherwise).
As an example of such a third-way theory, consider the theory that we originally came into existence either for no reason whatsoever, or for a reason R other than creation by a sentient entity, and since that time we have not evolved.
There are an infinity of allowable values of the unbound variable R above, so there are an infinity of theories of the above form. For example take the value for R “random chance”, or “logical necessity” (the latter being perhaps some form of the Anthropic Principle).
Can you prove that not a single member of this infinite set can possibly be true?
In philosophical contexts, one usually tries to find the most charitable interpretation of another’s discourse. Accordingly, I think the distinction you were *trying* to draw was:
“Either we were created by a sentient entity, or we were not”.
This is of the form “P v ~P”, so it is now a proper dilemma, but it still has a problem: it relies on the law of the excluded middle, which is shaky ground.
Aaarrrr!
Ahhhhh - I love the “do take me seriously please, I have spent ages thinking up this valid argument” Fundies
NO! Why should I? - you are deluded - The FSM is the one true way - and if I have offended or upset you - tough - I am a pirate wench, and I don’t give a f**k.
Bite me, git.