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.”
first post?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
yeah i got first post.
nice work with going around his copyright bobby, that’s why you’re the almighty prophet and we are but followers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Clayton
“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.”
.
Our creator, the FSM was drunk or hungover when he created the first Mountain, Midgit and Tree. I believe this tends to lean the FSM creation theory more in the direction of *Unintelligent design*…or even *fluke design*
Still a *design* theory none the less! Just how is *inteligent* design defined anyway? Is there an IQ requirement proposed for each posited designer? If so how will each one be tested?
So many questions…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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.”
.
Each with their own specific pseudo scientific evidence to suit? Curiouser and curiouser…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Bronze!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Awww…sorry ۞
Didn’t know you were coming.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s ages since I got a medal.
.
I think unintelligent design (UD) is a distinct theory from Intelligent Design (ID).
.
Unintelligent design is a far better objective explanation of the world. ID only gets coverage because of its association with the strong Christian lobby. ID has no scientific merit.
.
However UD stands on its own to fully explain all observations and also has a graph.
.
RAmen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Not only UD has a graph, its also about pirates, and how can anything about pirates not be true?
and by the way, are the creation stories of Jews, Christians and Muslims not entirely the same? i happen to recall something like that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh my FSM! I laughed my ass off at the copyright thing – what an idiot!
the others have already pointed out that ours is UNintelligent design, and we have many other proofs besides the graph.
I love the idea of an IQ test! God vs Allah and then Buddha vs Xena – we could do a TV show!
Which one shall we do?
Who wants to be a millionaire?
Jeopardy?
Mastermind? (And your chosen specialised subject is….smiting!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Bobby! Maybe you should tell him to write to Normal Bob Smith next! I don’t think his response would be so polite!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
B☠☠ty
“I love the idea of an IQ test! God vs Allah and then Buddha vs Xena – we could do a TV show!
Which one shall we do? Who wants to be a millionaire? Jeopardy? Mastermind?”
.
Hahahaha…excellent idea B☠☠ty :) Sounds like the fairest way!
.
“And your chosen specialised subject is….smiting!”
Which of their majic powers shall we allow each of them to use? How will we know they are, in fact, in attendence? I fear this could take some time…say a couple of hundred years…to organise :p
.
@Bobby Henderson
“Copyright FOREVER! © Bobby Henderson, All rights Reserved, especially ones I made up.”
.
Fits wholy within the frames of reference for Prophetry
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@just some follower of the FSM
.
The evidence for the existence of pirates is absolute and compelling.
There is no contemporary evidence at all for the existence of jesus.
Another point for Pastafarianism.
Graphs. Characters actually existed. Has internal consistency.
This whole competitive religion idea is a slam dunk for Pastafarianism.
.
I want to see the Christian God on Mastermind. His specialist subject should be “Human Suffering And Why A Supposedly All Powerful and Loving God Lets It Happen to Innocents”.
.
Allah can do “Sex Discrimination In A Civilised Society”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think this email from Clayton may be a turning point for Pastafarianism.
Most of the messages just ridicule our beliefs. Clayton has at least taken us seriously.
His points are in part valid. ID and UD are closely related though competing ideas.
They certainly have equal validity as science, which I believe was one of the two objectives that Bobby really set out to achieve.
.
1. ID and UD have equal validity as science.
2. This is “not very much”.
.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Clayton
Admiral Bobby is right, you are indeed a tard. In my school we were taught about cargo cult. Originating in poor island nations they believe that if they build an airport, planes will come and bring them free food. If they build a bank, it will fill with money. If at a CATHOLIC school we can be taught these beliefs, why not FSMism. The difference is, we were taught Cargo Cult in RELIGION, not SCIENCE.
@ Wench Nikkiee
nice spelling! Majic in fact. anyway, i think xians and their god couldn’t cope with ‘are you smarter than a 5th grader’, millionaire would be a far stretch.
@ Admiral Bobby
Lovely replies. Any way of turning up the spam filter on the livechat though? it’s unbearable. You’ll also be glad to know i got my whole school in on international talk like a pirate day. especially funny as the yr 10’s had their oral reports due! (they were forced)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
ID does not have any theory of pirates/global warming.
Also, if “God” created the world, and he is the perfect being, then the world should be perfect? But it isn’t.
However, we believe that the FSM was drunk when he created the world. Hence such things as disco music, Jar Jar Binks, and the decline of passenger pigeons due to the popular McPidgin Sandwich sold at McDonald’s.
The main difference of UD is that it has a lot more evidence to back it up!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To paraphrase our detractors:
The evidence against ID and in favour of UD is overwhelming.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Clayton has at least taken us seriously.
His points are in part valid.”
Well, at least someone actually read what I sent instead of concentrating on their own agenda. As far “Unintelligent Design” goes, it already exists. Does the “theory of evolution” not fall under “Unintelligent Design”? I don’t see any other options. Either we exist because we were designed by an intelligent entity (ID) or it was an accident (UD). I think both “Pastafarianism” and the “Theory of Evolution” both fall under “UD” and therefore we need only a small amendment to our teachings. Despite how I’ve been treated by Bobby Henderson I will remain professional about this whole thing.
Alas, I am afraid this message will also not be taken seriously and will be laughed at by countless mindless individuals that troll this site.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I take at face value that you are the original Clayton.
[Bobby can you cross check the e-mail addresses to confirm that we've got the right Clayton?].
.
There’s a huge difference between a theory with no intelligence (e.g. Evolution) and a theory flawed intelligence (e.g. Pastafarianism).
.
I’m suprised you made that mistake. You’ve seen the similarities between ID and UD, something most xians can’t manage.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
ID states that the being which designed is intelligent, not the design itself. If you have 3rd party documentation which states otherwise I’d love to see it.
As far as verifying that I am who I am he will have to base it on my IP address matched against the IP address in the header of the email I sent him.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Clayton
“Does the “theory of evolution” not fall under “Unintelligent Design”?”
.
How so? I wouldn’t call natural selection an unintelligent (in the big scheme of things as opposed to being directed by an intelligence) process? Natural selection, and by extension evolution results in the selection of those organisms best to survive survive, and therefore reproduce, in their specific enviroment. So what’s unintelligent about natural selection and evolution?
Oh and Clayton, I’ve had a bit of experience discussing with the IDists, as have many others at this site, and so am fairly familiar with the semantic gymnastics :)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
RAmen Angryy :)
.
@Clayton
Betime in my part of the world. I do hope you plan to stick around a for a bit. :)
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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 :)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
….Paris Hilton :)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ 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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In addition to what Zankou said. An intelligent designer doesn’t have to be the christian god, that’s what many people forget.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
$.48?
Fourty-eight cents?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0