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 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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yes, “gutsy” is indeed a word.
Although, I would classify it specifically as a colloquialism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
better question: is 48 cents a bet?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
………by the way, Hi Zankou *waves, what you doin’ here?
and GO DO YOUR HOMEWORK!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Bite me, git.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ 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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What, not even a little one while your hubby is out on the piss?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
PS, Clayton, you seem smart, but you also seem like a pompous ass. Wenches, let’s get out those frying pans.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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??? :))
.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/world-net-daily-on-expelled-no-intelligence-allowed/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think it only fair to let Clayton find out how deep the water is here. :p
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Jean
No, I was directing that at Beardyoldgit. Hence the use of the word “git”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You copyrighted your e-mail? I would expect to be appauld by something like this but I am too busy laughing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@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…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Wow ۞. An actual ‘intelligent’ response. heh”
.
That. That right there makes you sound like a pompous ass.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@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….??? (:))
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It would be nice, if even just once, a visiting IDiot would look into the mirror through eyes unblinded by faith and dogma! *sigh*
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Zankou
BTW you were quite a hottie in that TV show “Charmed”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ 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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Commodore, if I may….I think *pompous asshat tard* has a better melody to it :p)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@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? :))
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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 :)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hahahahaha…personally I think that would make good song substance :p
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ 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 :)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@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? :)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
good job Gray Beard, I just love the transitive property of equality.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ ۞ – 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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ ۞ – 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! :))
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0