Pinellas County School Board supports Intelligent Design

Published by Bobby Henderson December 19th, 2007 in Intelligent Design and General FSM news.

A majority of the Pinellas County, Florida, School Board supports the inclusion of Intelligent Design in the science curriculum, reports the St. Petersburg Times.

Four members of the school board, including the chairperson and vice-chairperson, have made statements in support of Intelligent Design.

“The entire theory of evolution is not scientific fact. Intelligent design balances it out.” — Nancy Bostock, Chairperson

“I’d probably ideally like to keep it all [evolution and Intelligent Design] out of the classroom. If it’s going to create this much controversy, how important is it?” — Peggy O’Shea, Vice Chairperson

“I think that students should be given the opportunity to view all theories on how man evolved and let their science background and their religious background take over as to which one they believe in.” — Jane Gallucci, Member

“To teach one [evolution] as if nothing else existed, I think we’re doing our students a disservice.” — Carol Cook, Member

You can read the news article here.

The PCSB website states: “The public is encouraged to contact the School Board members on any issue.”

I suggest we contact the school board and let them know there are more than two theories of our origins. Pastafarianism is built on similar tenets as Intelligent Design, and has much greater support from the academic community. If you decide to write, please be respectful.

Contact Info:

Office: (727) 588-6300
E-mail: Board@pcsb.org

Individual E-mail addresses:
Nancy Bostock: bostockn@pcsb.org
Peggy O’Shea: osheap@pcsb.org
Jane Gallucci: galluccij@pcsb.org
Carol Cook: cookc@pcsb.org

194 Responses to “Pinellas County School Board supports Intelligent Design”

1. 161 - February 27th, 2008 at - Brittni_Lover_of_RAmen Says:
   
   

   You know what, am i supporting the right god? Im not sure. Because it is still going against my beliefs, that evolution is the only theory. ANd yes, FSM does make fun of the god factor, but still…. I need some reassurance

2. 162 - February 27th, 2008 at - embarassed Says:
   
   

   If I may, Intelligent design stresses no god; it just states a theory that something(s) may have created. That includes the FSM. That being the case, I don’t understand the anger.

3. 163 - March 5th, 2008 at - James Says:
   
   

   Hello embarrassed,
   You should be embarrassed, “intelligent designer” is the same thing as “creator.” In the book of Pandas and people intelligent design was pasted inside of creationism, in an edition of the book just after it was made illegal to teach creationism in schools, as science. Intelligent Design is not Science, there is no fact to support it, irreducible complexity has been proven wrong. I will gladly e-mail you with scientific information from selfe3@yahoo.com. The problem is that ID is religion, it stresses an intelligent designer who created all living things, yes all. It is unconstitutional for them to teach creationism… I mean ID as science, it has no scientific foundation, and therefore it is a violation of the establishment clause in the constitution, which separates church from state. Look up the wedge document, which shows one of the main organizations behind ID’s agenda. Evolution has countless fossils, DNA evidence etc. You cannot say because there is a gap in Darwin’s theory (of which I have seen no evidence) we are right. ID has to come up with conclusive evidence to be considered a scientific theory. So until you have peer reviewed evidence, which can be observed and tested, and there are 100’s of pieces of evidence, you will graduate from religion to science and therefore be legal to be taught in schools. But since ID is creationism, it is a breach of my rights as a student and the rights of every American to teach that garbage outside of a theology class. FUCK YOU.
   -J.T.S.

4. 164 - March 5th, 2008 at - craig Says:
   
   

   My response to this situation was thus.

   I, a believer in the tenants of Pastafarianism as well as Deism, feel that, in spite of my Christian ties, intelligent design should not be taught in school, based on a few basic and unavoidable flaws in its practice. The first being that following the law there is to be a separation of church and state. Where can I find information on how you justify the creationistic teachings as not breaking this key law. The next point is that the word science has a definition. This is, as stated by dictionary.com;
   1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

   2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

   3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.

   4. systematized knowledge in general.

   5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

   6. a particular branch of knowledge.

   7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

   All of these definitions have one similarity and that is that they point to a study of factual, earthbound laws, not beliefs. Darwinism follows this and is science theory. A theory is not a fact and as such is not saying that ID is not right but instead that evolution is a possibility currently supported by the scientific community. I use this argument to say that ID should not be taught in a science class that or any class that it would, by being in it, be a contradiction to the very class.
   Lastly my Pastafarian beliefs hold me to point out that ID could be done by many forces other then God. There are other divine forces in belief on the earth. God, Ala, Buddha, the Hindu gods, as well as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as well as many more. My focus, however, will be on the latter. He has just as much grounds as all other ID beliefs and, to my knowledge, more scientific backing. Do we really have enough time in the school year to teach all of the possible religious creation possibilities that spring up. Do we base it on the number of followers of a given religion to give its support validity? I would assume that the only fair way to teach it is to teach all beliefs and in that it would cut down on all the other more scientific teachings in the already cramped curriculum. Is that fair to the future generations or society as a whole, I think not.
   I would like to thank you all for your time. I hope my view may enlighten you to a new side of the issue. I do not expect to change your view on your religion or life in general, but I do hope you will see the other side for the sake of science and the constitution.

   Sincerely,
   Craig Schambers

5. 165 - March 13th, 2008 at - Lu Says:
   
   

   They’re teaching intelligent design? That’s is great!!! So are they going to teach how our lord and savior, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, intelligently designed mankind with his noodly appendages in 6 days, 7000 years ago? Everyone knows Jesus was the son of the Flying Spaghetti Monster…so spread the truthful gospels of the FSM!

   Ramen be upon you

6. 166 - March 13th, 2008 at - Vermicelli Says:
   
   

   I’m curious, is there an Intelligent Design II class that explains how the creator was created?

7. 167 - March 16th, 2008 at - Greg Says:
   
   

   PS, here is the letter I sent:

   It is unfortunate that you are supporting the religion of Intelligent Deisgn. Such a thing is a violation of Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., the Lemon Test, and other federal lawsuits (available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_test#Lemon_test ). Intelligent design is little more than a thinly veiled attempt to push the majority religion (in this case Christianity) onto the entire populace. Such a thing only goes against the Lemon Test.

   In addition, the adoption of Intelligent Design is inherently flawed. In doing so, you are removing all other forms of religious creation stories, including the idea that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

   Under the Lemon test, you (as a government lawmaking entity) must do the following:

   1. The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose;

   2. The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;

   3. The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.

   In adopting Intelligent Design, you are no longer having a secular purpose, as you are adopting a religious belief in the school setting. You are advancing a religion in this case, as Intelligent Design is primarily a Christian invention. In wanting to adopt Intelligent Design, you are possibly engaging in “excessive entanglement with religion” by taking a Christian Creationism stance.

   It only takes one of those points to fail the Lemon Test, yet by adopting Intelligent Design you are clearly violating two points of the Lemon Test and possibly violating the third one. I urge you not to commit an unconstitutional and unscientific mistake.

   Respectfully

   Greg

8. 168 - March 19th, 2008 at - Pete Says:
   
   

   I think it’s extremely neglectful that the schools aren’t also teaching our children how to predict the future by reading the entrails of slaughtered animals, or observing the flight of birds. That would really balance things out nicely.

9. 169 - March 20th, 2008 at - cina murtad Says:
   
   

   i am sure there will be classes about the designer of the designer. but whatever that may be, i’m also sure that fsm is the designer of all designers :D hail mighty spaghetti! ramen.

10. 170 - March 22nd, 2008 at - Chris Says:
    
    

    Email Sent:

    Members of the Pinellas County School Board:

    My name is Chris Green, I am currently in my third year of study working towards a combined honours degree in Chemistry and Biochemistry at Dalhousie University. I am writing in support of your decision to expand the scientific curriculum in your school district, but I must also express my concern that you are taking the wrong route. The alternative evolutionary theory that has by far the most support from the academic community is the creed preached by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and I think that any science curriculum that does not include His teachings is unbalanced.

    I think this is particularly important because, unlike myself, hundreds of thousands of pastifarians around the world are still too afraid to make their views known to the world, for fear of persecution by their peers. I believe in my heart that if His teachings are taught in the science classroom, alongside the alternative theories of evolution and intelligent design of course, students will draw on their scientific and religious backgrounds and certainly make the right choice. Not only will the secret pastafarians of the world feel it is time to finally make their views public, but many non-believers will see the logic and integrity of His word, and convert.

    Again I must reiterate, I think you are certainly taking a step in the right direction, but to not give equal time to the FSM theory of creation, which has such widespread support throughout the academic community, you are doing a great disservice to the children of your district. If you have any questions regarding how to incorporate the FSM theory of creation into your classrooms please do not hesitate to contact me. Also, if you would like more information about the church itself, I would be happy to help spread His word to you.

    May His Noodly Appendages guide you to make the correct decision.

    -Christopher Green

11. 171 - March 25th, 2008 at - capekicks Says:
    
    

    Good letter Cris, I like the emphasis on widespread support of the acaemic community.
    When I sent my letter I got a secretary’s response.
    They have an election coming up and jane galucci wont be running but who knows the position of the replacement.
    Good work Pirate!!!

    Aaarrrr!!!

12. 172 - April 3rd, 2008 at - Daniel Says:
    
    

    Here’s the email I sent to all of them!

    Hello, thank you for being open to ideas and accepting mail from the public! As a student of science, I am thrilled to hear that you are open to teaching various theories, and I have noted that you are now teaching Intelligent Design. I really think it is admirable that students are being taught to look beyond the evidence. But I am very concerned that Pinellas County Schools are not fairly representing all scientific theories equally! I am referring, of course, to the outrageous lack of Pastafarianism in your schools. We believe from our Gospel that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created a midget, trees, and a mountain, and that all people today are direct descendents of pirates. I know this is true because I have felt the touch of His Noodly Appendage in my life. But this is not just a religious feeling, it is a scientific theory! The facts are on our side. No one has disproven that the Flying Spaghetti Monster has simply made the world looking as if we all evolved from a common ancestor. In addition, humans share only about 96% of their DNA with apes, whereas they share 99.9% of their DNA with pirates! For more information concerning pirates and global warming, visit www.venganza.org. In the meantime, please give equal representation to everyone who has an idea about the way the world works! Or, of course, you could remove both Pastafarianism and Creationism (oops, Intelligent Design) from your classrooms and simply teach the only theory that the evidence supports and scientists accept: evolution.
    I trust the Flying Spaghetti Monster will reveal himself to you. RAmen.
    Sincerely, Daniel

13. 173 - April 14th, 2008 at - henry.darger Says:
    
    

    interesting. three out of four say they are in favor of, effectively, keeping an open mind and allowing both sides to be presented. and yet, somehow, that becomes simply that they support ID.

    I thought one of the most commonly used refrains from the atheist / scientific materialist side against religion / creationism was that religion prevents original thought and critical thinking. Now, it seems, it is the scientific / evolutionist side that is most interested in preventing the propagation of what they see as opposing points of view.

14. 174 - April 23rd, 2008 at - UhhKris Says:
    
    

    Wow…
    I used to attend a school in that district.
    Luckily, I moved to Kansas…

15. 175 - April 24th, 2008 at - Marc Says:
    
    

    Not at all, Henry.

    What they are all saying is that they see ID as a valid ’scientific’ theory that can be taught alongside evolution. It is not someone’s belief in ID that upsets the scientific community, but the idea that it is science, where it is clearly not. Please see Greg’s letter above for how to get more information.

16. 176 - April 30th, 2008 at - Alex Says:
    
    

    Henry,
    You can’t equate a scientific theory (such as gravity, relativity (specific and general), evolution, etc… ) to the common use of the word theory which in scientific terms is a “hypothesis”, at best. It has less to do with having an open mind (as you stated) and more to do with when do we as a responsible sociological group draw the line as to what we teach? If we want to teach hypothosis than we must not be selective. I could postulate that my hand is being guided about the keyboard at this very moment by His noodly appendage. Can you refute that? No. I would imagine that all of my Pastifarian bretheren can sense the truthiness of my words, though you might call it my own personal hypothesis. ID is selective in it’s teaching of Faith (I’m sorry, I know you believe it to be science…), but doesn’t it kinda discredit all of the other religions as well (WHAT!? you don’t want to teach Budism, Hinduism or any of the polytheistic religions?)? If you want to stop teaching evolution because of your faith, where do we draw the line? When it no longer becomes inconvenient to your belief system? Well next we’ll have someone into numerology that has a problem with Math and we’ll have to teach BOTH numerology and math. Ok, fine. Let’s do it. Just for fun, lets take a look at young Timmys NEW schedule =)

    8:00 English
    9:00 Math
    10:00 Intelligent Design
    11:00 Voodoo!!!!
    1200 Lunch
    1:00 Numerology++
    2:00 Science (covering ALL of the science to include biology, chemistry, geology etc… and of course evolution)

    (did I forget Music and Art? Oh right, they’ve been dropped from the curriculum due to all of the competing ‘disciplines’)

    Finally at 3:00 Timmy hops on the bus, excitedly chatting with all of his classmates about his upcomming field trip to Salem, MA and his upcomming inquistion project which is due next week!

    I feel that your “word” has spread quite well without the use of our federally funded school system. There is such a thing as secularity. Oh wait a minute, He has not guided you to read the first ammendment, has He?

17. 177 - May 5th, 2008 at - Al Says:
    
    

    Here’s my letter to the Board, tailored (with the appropriate quote they’ve made) for each one.

    Hope it’s not too late to get the Glorious Word out …

    Greetings. I am writing to you from Switzerland, as a European Pastafarian.

    May I applaud your open-mindedness in supporting the teaching of Creationism (crossed out) Intelligent Design in the schools of your area. It is always good to hear of someone bravely challenging the Theory of Evolution, despite the fact that Evolution is supported by a vast amount of evidence. We believers should never let a bit (or even a lot) of evidence get in the way of our faith.

    As you state:

    “The entire theory of evolution is not scientific fact. Intelligent design balances it out.”

    Indeed it does. And, in turn, the Pastafarian beliefs balance out both of them.

    The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is spreading widely in the academic communities in the USA, and throughout the world. This glorious Gospel needs to be heard more widely. Your students need the facts so they can decide the truth!

    I realise that you may take this amiss, coming as it does from outside the States. But please remember that true faith knows no boundaries. Even as I write there are Christian missionaries from the States working in far-flung corners of the world. We Pastafarians are similarly reaching out to non-believers across international borders with the Good News of his Noodly Appendage.

    It would be so wonderful if you would support not only the teaching of the Theory of Evolution, and the beliefs of Creationism (crossed out) Intelligent Design in your schools, but also the beliefs of us Pastafarians. Then your students would get a truly balanced view.

    May His Noodly Appendage touch you, and guide you in this brave decision of yours.

    With my best wishes,

18. 178 - May 9th, 2008 at - Chris T Says:
    
    

    I’m going to be calling these folks in the morning/Monday morning to spread the noodly goodness of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! :-D

19. 179 - May 20th, 2008 at - Her Excellency Says:
    
    

    Seriously? I go to a Catholic school and they teach evolution

20. 180 - May 30th, 2008 at - alchemist Says:
    
    

    Plain and simple …..ID is NOT science. For an excellent review of this fact read the Dover decision transcripts. Even the “experts ” for ID admitted that the foundations of science would have to be changed to allow ID to “pose” as science, and that such changes would make other non-scientific enterprises ( astrology, tarot card reading, necromancy, etc. ), equally acceptable. There is no evidence whatever for ID other than personal accounts from ages long ago. As has been shown in numerous cases eye-witness testimony is among the least reliable “evidence ” I doubt any of these ID supporters would want to go to trial with their life on the line and want evidence as flimsy as that for ID used in the prosecution’s case. Indeed there is at least as much “evidence” for the flying spaghetti monster or other alien interventions in human life as ID. Much to the chagrin of IDers and oters of their ilk..Science is not a democracy….facts and data are facts and data..like it or not. Until the time IDers can come up with a testable hypothesis, collect and analyze data from double blind experiments, to allow critical assessment of their “theory ” then ID will remain as it is ….pseudoscience at best .

Leave a Reply