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.”
@Zankou Sep 29th, 2007 at 1:57 pm: “Bite me, git.”
.
If it’s B☠☠ty you’re trying to insult here, then be very afraid, for there shall come upon thou the wrath of the Disciples!
.
Voilà.
@ Clayton
.
Dear Sir,
I believe you do understand the difference between ID and “UD”, yes. However, I don’t think you understand what ID really is. ID is the belief that science and creation are one and the same, and that an all powerful God(s) is responsible. It is the belief that creation is through science, that it is some how guided by some deity. I would argue that this is not necessarily the case with Pastafarianism.
.
The almighty FSM created the world, flat out. He didn’t design the world. The way it pertains to scientific theory and why it should be taught along side of ID is that it very clearly explains the current sate of scientific understanding and that is, that the FSM continually alters our perceptions of the world. He manipulates our senses and the very nature of science. He makes scientists believe that the world is much older than it actually is.
.
PS. The whole global warming and pirates comparison is science in itself.
What, not even a little one while your hubby is out on the piss?
I only read about half of the replies, but:
ID means it has an intelliegent designer.
UD means it has an UNintelligent designer.
Evolution wasn’t designed at all, it just happens.
PS, Clayton, you seem smart, but you also seem like a pompous ass. Wenches, let’s get out those frying pans.
If Clayton is indeed *serious* about this issue, then I’m sure he would have read this following Council of Europe resolution (or similiar proclamations as in the Dover trial transcripts) and so has no problem with distinguishing between the scientific nature of the theory of evolution and the religous faith based assertions of ID.
.
Council of Europe 17 September 2007
“The dangers of creationism in education”
9. Creationism claims to be based on scientific rigour. In actual fact the methods employed by creationists are of three types: purely dogmatic assertions; distorted use of scientific quotations, sometimes illustrated with magnificent photographs; and backing from more or less well-known scientists, most of whom are not specialists in these matters. By these means creationists seek to appeal to non-specialists and sow doubt and confusion in their minds.
.
http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?Link=/documents/workingdocs/doc07/edoc11375.htm.
.
On another note…
Is Dembski now allowing criticism on his Uncommon Descent blog??? :))
.
www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/world-net-daily-on-expelled-no-intelligence-allowed/
I think it only fair to let Clayton find out how deep the water is here. :p
@ Jean
No, I was directing that at Beardyoldgit. Hence the use of the word “git”.
You copyrighted your e-mail? I would expect to be appauld by something like this but I am too busy laughing.
I’ve made my point. Some of you understand it, even if you disagree with it, and many others don’t. My messages from the first email to this last one have been an attempt to come to understand these terms and the ideas of Pastafarianism better. I feel I’ve succeeded in that. One of the main things I have reaffirmed in this venture is that the majority of people will try to redirect a conversation away from the issue and turn it toward some mistake or technicality made in my message.
btw: The whole copyright thing was me being a smartass. After all, isn’t that what Pastafarianism is all about? lol
Also, I fail to see how I am a “tard” or a “pompous ass” because of this search for understanding, but I suppose I will have to consider the source.
Finally, the current solution of teaching only “the theory of evolution” or teaching the ideas of “Intelligent Design” as they are now is broken. Creationism, Evolution, and many other theories listed here should all be included as possibilities to the existence of the universe and as such should be taught equally in our schools. I don’t see how anyone could argue with that. That should make members of all religious communities happy. And yes, I consider atheism to be a religion so that includes them as well.
P.S. I’m sure the many fools who troll this site will have a field day trying to tear this apart instead of taking it for what it is. I doubt I’ll be posting here again as this thread has gotten pretty long, but I challenge these people to spark my interest. Peace
@Clayton
I’m pretty sure all of the Pastafarians understood your point, but rejected it because it is clearly false. Have you seen their point?
.
When it comes to the education of the kids, I think it’s a good idea to make sure that there are no mistakes or technicalities for us to turn the conversation to.
.
“btw: The whole copyright thing was me being a smartass. After all, isn’t that what Pastafarianism is all about? Lol”
-I’m quite experienced in this matter, and I must say that the whole copyright deal was a pretty pathetic attempt at being a “smartass”. Perhaps including a copyright on the original e-mail was okay, but threatening legal action is kind of stupid (the opposite of smart, for those of you who don’t know). In my professional opinion you were just being a dick, got embarrassed, and tried to cover for it.
.
“I fail to see how I am a “tard” or a “pompous ass”
I’ll show you…
“but I suppose I will have to consider the source.” Put that with you clear lack of understanding of what you’re talking about and it’s pretty apparent.
.
I can argue against theistic creation in an American (public) classroom because of the Establishment Clause. I can argue a lot if you want it put in a science classroom, because, well, look it up yourself. As to your considering atheism to be a religion, I direct you to it’s component morphemes, “a-” and “-theism”. “a-” means not and “-theism” means religion. I believe that adds up to “not religion”.
.
“Peace” here’s something we agree with, at least ‘til pillaging time comes up…
“Wow ۞. An actual ‘intelligent’ response. heh”
.
That. That right there makes you sound like a pompous ass.
Clayton, anyone could make up any number of creation ‘theories’. Should they all be given equal time in a science classroom? If not why not?
@Clayton Sep 29th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
“I doubt I’ll be posting here again as this thread has gotten pretty long, but I challenge these people to spark my interest.”
.
Ah Clayton, Clayton, Clayton….can’t really swim at all huh?
Well, don’t feel too badly about it :) You’re yet another in a long, long list of visitors having come here suffering the same affliction.
.
.
@El Peatieablo Sep 29th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
“I’ll show you…
“but I suppose I will have to consider the source.” Put that with you clear lack of understanding of what you’re talking about and it’s pretty apparent.”
.
RAmen El Peatieablo
.
OK who’s up next….??? (:))
It would be nice, if even just once, a visiting IDiot would look into the mirror through eyes unblinded by faith and dogma! *sigh*
Clayton
Sep 29th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Also, I fail to see how I am a “tard” or a “pompous ass” because of this search for understanding, but I suppose I will have to consider the source.
*
You are never automatically a pompous ass for trying to search for understanding. However YOU are definitly one. Why? Simple: you clearly think you are sooo smart and many here are just to dumb to understand you. Two: you are quite smug about that. That alone is enough to dub you a pompous ass.
Well, I bet you ALL that some bored teacher will allow any loud mouthed student with an ounce of drive - excuse any mishpelled words tonight, bad migraine, and no real meds… asked the doc to take me offa narcs, and havent seen the all-mighty nuero yet to find a decent alternative, so booze it is for now! See, I got annoyed at the whole Black History year in school (in Balitmore 70% African American, pretty damn PC) so I pointed out that white history wasnt even given a fair shake considering only the Roman conquering of Europe was covered, and the Celts did it long before… long story short, I was given a full hour in history class in which I bored the hell outta everyone except my boyfriend (who helped me pass history cause the rest of it bored the hell outta me) and my history teacher, who was shocked to actually learn something himself, along with a reputable list of traceable list of references. Sooo, no matter what drivel makes it into a classroom, as long as we loudmouthed, educated eyepatched ones just tickle our kids’ minds once in a while, the fundies can’t do too much damage.
.
Especially in this day, knowledge is more infectious than the bird flu, which I hope the Noodly one will soon open a groggy eye and turn into chicken soup!
ARGH!
@ Zankou
BTW you were quite a hottie in that TV show “Charmed”
@ RDPW
Thankyou for pointing that out. I can’t believe he came on here and had the nerve andaudacity to challenge the greatest minds in the world, and then pretend he won the argument. Due to his superior intellect no less.
@ Clayton
Learn how to look at things objectively you pompous tard asshat.
Commodore, if I may….I think *pompous asshat tard* has a better melody to it :p)