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.”
if instead of a normal scientific theory, we should also talk about ID in biology class, then i have another theory to add to geography.
the world is actually banana shaped, but because of invisible pink pamela anderson monsters we think its round.
just use lots & lots of magic mushrooms and you’ll see i speak the truth, the evidence is soooo overwhelming
@El Peatieablo Sep 29th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
“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.”
.
That certainly puts ID on the cutting room floor then!
According to IDists the designer made *kinds* of organisms. Not one IDiot I’ve asked in the past year has been able to define a *kind* for me. Another point on which they are deliberately vague, or will not answer, is when asked what are their actual implied meanings of the terms *design* and *designer*. Well come to think of it, all of the ID terminology is more than alittle deliberately vague. I wonder why that is? :))
@James Sep 29th, 2007 at 6:09 am
.
“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
.
But Chemistry James? I know…I know…Chemists are people too! At least that’s what they keep telling me anyway :p) About the name….
Mind you “intelligent molecularism” does have a nice ring to it :)
RAmen
Erm… sorry Physicists too. I’m not familiar with physics and when I see stuff about atoms, I automatically think chemistry…stupid I know…but true none the less. I will change my evil ways :)
Wench Nikkie, thankyou for correcting the layout of my sentene flow better. now i won’t be stuck with writing a song about this pompous asshat tard.
Hahahahaha…personally I think that would make good song substance :p
You know Clayton, it took me a while to see the flaw in your argument - but it is there.
.
Your definition of “intelligent” is the important thing. You see, you do not define intelligent in the same way that the “ID” crowd do. Yours is a catch all term, which could include dogs or monkeys.
.
If this is the case, then with your definition in mind, anything sentient could be the designing agent. No omnipotent god is required by the ID “theory” at that point, if we use your definition. And if that is the case, why is any designer required at all?
.
No, I rather suspect you are trying to wide behind word definitions. Unfortunately, rational agents tend to get tetchy about these things. You cannot redefine words to suit yourself on whimsy. If your point, your definition is to stand, then I propose we rename the ID camp to IU - Intelligent Undesign.
.
FSM (Flying Scots Man)
That wouldn’t make me happy. It would lead to people being taught misleading nonsense as fact.
That is a terrible thing to use schools for. The purpose of schools is to enlighten not indoctorinate.
.
If you teach things equally, you are presenting them as having equal validity and basis in fact.
ID & creationism have no basis in fact and scant validity. They aren’t science and shouldn’t be presented in science lessons as science to impressionable minds.
.
Of course the religious groups would be happy with that - it elevates their traditions to level of fact - a fantasy they engage in without any encouragement.
.
As has been pointed out in the UK, your equal treatment of these ideas appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the wide variety of applications we have for the words belief and theory.
.
You have to look beyond those words and ask what informs someones belief, and what evidences they have to support their theory.
In religious circles the answers are usually faith, and at best a heavily edited non-contemporaneous and badly written book.
.
Religious belief is not on an equal footing with science and shouldn’t be presented as such.
@ Zankou - you had me worried there for a minute!
Glad you weren’t offended by me! :D
@ Funky Symbol Dude - Of course I meant in the metaphorical sense!
@JB - thanks for leaping to my defense :)
My problem with ID is that it doesn’t have a good argument. If it had proof, specific definitions, etc., maybe I’d be willing to consider it. But their entire argument is based on proving that evolution DIDN’T happen, and thus and intelligent design DID. But that’s the other problem, they don’t have anything to back up an intelligent designer. There’s no proof that there ISN’T a god, and thus there MUST be one. And those are both logical fallacies.
.
But I’m sure I’m just preaching to the choir. Unless Clayton comes back and reads this. Maybe he’ll realize what an idiot he’s been, and apologize for being such a pompous asshat tard.
@Nikkiee
“On another note…
Is Dembski now allowing criticism on his Uncommon Descent blog??? :))”
.
Hmmm….interesting. When I posted there some time ago my post sure as hell didn’t make it past the moderator. I may try again.
.
How’s things Down Under? :)
Clayton’
.
In your Email, “Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t Pastafarianism fall under the term ‘Intelligent Design’ and is not a third theory.” Then, at 4:39, “I think both ‘Pastafarianism’ and the ‘Theory of Evolution’ both fall under ‘UD’.” Let us assume that you are right in both cases. Wouldn’t that mean that ID and evolution are the same? a=b, b=c, therefor a=c.
.
To be fair, you did say “correct me if I’m wrong,” which we did. So, you switched gears and said UD and evolution are the same. We corrected you there too. Then you go “I’m out of here.” (Not a direct quote.)
.
Face it, You got stomped.
good job Gray Beard, I just love the transitive property of equality.
I love the fact that the people who come here to argue against the FSM are the ones who usually either point out how weak the competition is, or end up supporting our claims themselves accidentally. Makes you wonder if the ID vs Evolution debate isn’t a show of evolution itself, just stumped since all the darn smart people have protected the dumb ones from being eaten long ago. What a shame if you as me.
.
Natural Selection: It’s Only Natural
@ihatemyspace.
You talking about the false dilemma fallacy, that antimatty mentioned.
The belief that by knocking one point of view strengthens another in the fallacious belief there are only two points of view.
Rabid xians believe the dilemma is:
One of:
1. Life on Earth evolved.
or
2. The Christian God created the world and the Bible is literal truth.
.
but not both.
.
Not only is that appalling bad reasoning (to believe that one of those must be true and the other false) but what sends them in to tizzy fits is all the evidence points to 1. being true.
.
Their faith is a martyr to their own stupidity. I think that is very very funny.
In truth their faith isn’t destroyed by the evidence to support other theories but the total lack of evidence to suport their faith.
.
But as mentioned they’re even too stupid to understand why they are wrong.
.
What makes it particularly delicious is their pompositiy as they make themselves look like arses.
@ ۞ - And the sad thing is that the more their faith is challenged by evidence, the harder they fight for it. Because giving it up is too terrifying to them. They need the crutch of their faith to make it on this planet, rather than realizing that they have the ability to think and wonder and reason. They get further entrenched in insanity. Thank the FSM that some of us made it out.
Rowdy, I agree.
They are actually fighting their own stupidity in a mirror. It’s a form of shadow boxing.
They can’t support their own argument by knocking everyone elses, so every time the fail to do it, they get more angry.
If only they found some arguments of their own rather than try and pick holes in other peoples.
@ ۞ - I’m so glad to have a chance to visit CoFSM! It feels like it’s been forever…Anyway, I think people do this in general. I’ve spent a lot of time around people who work really hard at making everyone around them seem worse so they can feel better about themselves. Attempting to do damage to other people will not make you right! Or better! Telling people they are wrong and stupid will not make them want to be like you. The “you” here being the Xtians, BTW! :))
You go Bobby, poor Clayton probably cried himself to sleep when he found out that you completely owned him legally. But still, you should have come up with some long and complicated response about why you didn’t include Pastafarianism under “Intelligent Design”, something like the fact that the FSM was a wee bit drunk when he made the Earth(Don’t quote me on that I haven’t read the Gospel in ages).
RAmen
“You also did not answer my question which leads me to believe I am right in my assumptions.”
.
Don’t you think that’s a being bit fallacious?
.
Copyright © 2007 Aristotle. All rights reserved.