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?
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.
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…
“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…
Bronze!
Awww…sorry ۞
Didn’t know you were coming.
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.
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.