Academic Endorsements – page 1
“As a scientist, I’d like to say that the currently accepted scientific theory is evolution. But, some competing ideas have been proposed, such as ID and FSMism, and discussion to include one should include the other, as these ideas are equally valid.“
– Mark Zurbuchen, Ph.D.
“As a medical practitioner and scientist, I wholeheartedly believe that every theory and hypothesis needs full consideration and explanation with formal ratification by peer review. We have a duty to inform our schools and presumably pasta should form a staple part of our educational diet.“
– Dr. A. Macintyre (UK)
“Letting the religious right teach ID in schools is like letting the Marines teach poetry in advanced combat training. As a scientist, I see these the relevancy between the two sets to be equal. If Kansas is going to mess up like this, the least it can do is not be hypocritical and allow equal time for other alternative “theories” like FSMism, which is by far the tastier choice.”
– J. Simon, PhD
“One of the hardest things to do as a scientist is to put my personal beliefs aside when discussing matters of science. So as a professional, I have to say that both forms of Intelligent Design – ID and ID-FSM are equally valid and if intelligent design is taught in schools, equal time should be given to the FSM theory and the non-FSM theory. But, speaking personally now, it seems to me the FSM theory is MUCH more plausable than the non-FSM ID theory, because it is the only one of the two that takes into account all the discrepancies between ID and measureable objective reality.”
– Professor Douglas Shaw, Ph.D
“In discussing competing theories, if one is to present ID then it is only fair and logical to teach other theories with commensurate evidence. Based on Mr. Henderson’s letter, it is clear that the FSM theory has evidence comparable in weight to ID. As a scientist and professor, it is often difficult to present differing opinions in an unbiased way. However, it is important to the student to be exposed to these ideas to form their own opinions. This comes right out of the handbook of the ID purporters: present the different “theories” and let the listener decide. If those in favor of ID are so convinced, then they should not be concerned that the presentation of the FSM theory would serve to undermine the credibility of ID. “
– Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer, PhD
“At one time, I believed as the Aztecs did, that the universe was created by two gods, Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca who attacked and ripped apart Hungry Woman to create the universe. Then I believed, as the Moriori do, that the universe was created when Papa and her husband Rangi hugged and bore children, and were subsequently separated by their son Tane who let light shine between them. However, my views have been swayed by the substantial evidence that the earth and universe was actually created relatively recently by the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM). I am firmly convinced that the evidence supporting this depiction of the origins of life, the universe, and everything has many of the trappings of science, and I therefore support the inclusion of FSM creation evidence in the Kansas science curriculum and standards.“
– Sebastian Wren, Ph.D
“ One of the most exciting developments in fundamental physics in the last twenty years has been the development of so-called “String Theory.” In String Theory, all fundamental sub-atomic particles are visualized and described mathematically as microscopic vibrating strings. Although as yet unproven, many physicists believe that String Theory has the potential to become the long-sought “Theory of Everything,” through which the fundamental physical nature of all matter and forces will become understood.
Obviously String Theory IS correct, although misnamed (a secular humanist conspiracy perhaps?). As NOODLE Theory clearly unambiguously reveals, He has created the fundamental subatomic particles that form all matter in this universe in His own quivering image! You, me, the Earth, the stars…everything in the universe…are all built of trillions of tiny jiggling noodles, microscopic copies of our Divine Saucy Maker. Truly He is everywhere and in all things!
Boy-oh-Boyardi and Ramen!“
–Steve Lawrence, PhD
“As a scientist I believe that when presented with a new idea every possibility should be considered so we can eventually find the truth. It would be very biased if the only possibilities presented would be regulated by some authority. As a scientist I am biased towards the theory of evolution, but this does not mean that everyone should be forced to only learn this and believe this. Putting this aside, I feel if the government feels the need to regulate what students need to learn, then all ideas should be taught in school. Not only Intelligent Design (ID) should be taught, but the theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) should also be taught. In my scientific opinion when comparing the two theories, FSM theory seems to be more valid then the classic ID theory. There is more data to back FSM then I have ever seen for ID. The graph which was presented should alone more convincing then anything ID has ever presented. I endorse the FSM theory.“
–Afshin Beheshti, PhD
“As a scienctist, I think that ID is a form of pseudoscience–nothing more, nothing less. Pseudosciences lack the well-designed and carefully-interpreted experiments which characterize the true sciences. ID is popular because it provides the general public with an easily understood “answer” to nature’s complexity. Why is it human nature to try to fill the gaps in science with some form of a deity? Nobel laureate Richard Feynman, in his response the Challenger disaster, wrote, “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.” It is too bad that many in the USA have fallen into the ID trap, and are making emotional rather than logical decisions.
That being said, and the more I consider ID and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) theory, the FSM theory has a lot going for it. First, it should satisfy even the most ardent ID detractors. Secondly, since everyone needs to eat and to believe in something, the FSM theory fulfills these desires. Finally, FSM neatly ties together the many ideas about the creation of the universe. I plan on exposing my students to the FSM theory over a pasta dinner. “
–Elizabeth Cowles, PhD
Continue to Academic Endorsements – page 2
@ RSW
#945-946
I think you for your apology, but it, and your claims of having read my post carefully, would carry more weight if you had not followed it with a post that ignored my post completely. I used the USSR as a specific example of a regime that killed because it was nationalistic not because it was secular, and you ignored that entirely. If you are free to claim that the people killed by the USSR were killed by Atheism, we are free to claim that anyone killed by any non-secular nation were killed by religion – this would include the Roman Empire (before and after Constantine), all of Europe until basically this past century, and the vast majority of the Middle East even now – sorry, but the numbers don’t add up in your favor.
#948
Once again, you bias manifests itself. First of all, not every religion has the same set of morals, nor are they interpreted constantly. For example, you cite slavery as an example of a behavior that may spring from Atheism because of some “majority rules” philosophy, when several religions (including Christianity) have been used to justify that behavior – this is the place where you claim that people who did this were not real Christians, but you are wrong – a Christian is anyone who is “a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity”, these people may have not been the same brand of Christian as you, but you cannot claim that they were not Christians anymore than I can claim that Stalin was not an Atheist (and if you had actually read my previous post, you would see that I never did that, even though he beliefs on many other matters were very different than mine).
You say that Bible teaches great morality because it teaches against rape, slavery, etc., but actually it tells people that it is better to offer your daughters up for rape to keep men from raping other men (like heterosexual rape is somehow better then homosexual rape, even though homosexual rape cannot produce illegitimate children) and that slaves should patiently endure their condition instead of rebelling. The fact is that morality from religion is just as foggy and subjective as morality from any other source, but with two added pitfalls: it encourages people to obey without question, so it is very difficult detect mistakes; and it makes people feel absolutely secure in their opinions, so it is very difficult to correct mistakes (e.g. it can’t be bad for me to beat my child, the Bible tells me it will spoil him if I don’t, and I don’t care what your stupid psychology studies say).
As for your example of why the Athenian view of morality through logic is incorrect, why does that very same argument not apply to every time a Christian society made a poor decision? What about the Catholic Church’s decision to cover up child molestation by Priests? I never said Atheism always leads to the best decision that can be made in a given situation, but the fact is that religion doesn’t either, with the two added pitfalls I mentioned earlier. Additionally, logic is not the only factor to take into consideration in a moral decision – empiricism is equally important. Does this behavior benefit society or harm it? We thought the logic was on our side, but oh wait, the rate of teenage suicide and sexually transmitted diseases have increased substantially, maybe it’s not a good idea to allow this behavior.
And that bring me to my next argument – I agree that Atheism means that morality is not absolute, but that dies not mean there is no morality. “Does this action, in this situation, hurt more people that it helps?” That is the kind of moral question an Atheist can ask his/herself instead of “Does God want me to do this?”. You say the only moral claims we atheists have against rape, murder, etc.. are that we, personally, don’t like it – you are incorrect. We can measure the rate of sexually transmitted diseases, the teen birth rate, and yes, ultimately, the average level on happiness and contentment in the people of the world; just because morality is not absolute, does not mean it cannot be objective.
It comes down to this: we, Pastafarians, are largely scientists. We like to test and measure things. When the measurements we come up with are different than what we expected, we have to be prepared to say that our expectations were wrong –this allows us to progressively get closer and closer to the truth. I’m not saying we don’t make mistakes, we’re humans, so of course we do, but we have a system in place to help us detect out mistakes, and hopefully correct them. A religion based purely on faith does not allow this – when the measurements (if they are even taken in the fist place) disagree with the expectations, the measurements need to be either ignored or explained away. You can argue all you want that you like it that way, that it makes you and others happy to live that way, but at the end of the day, that is not science, and we, as Pastafarians, do not like it because to us it means that any initially incorrect expectations cannot be corrected. Can’t you see why that would bother us?
Your posts on this thread began with supposed scientific evidence in favor of ID over evolution – this supposed evidence was examined and confronted with a mass of contradictory evidence, which you ignored. You then resorted to saying that Atheism does not allow for morality, in the process offending me and probably many others, – I answered this claim with evidence that it does (which you admit you already had because you supposedly have perfectly nice friends that are Atheists) and you ignored it. And you’re probably going to ignore the content of this post too – don’t you understand how weak this makes you position look? How paltry it makes your apology to me sound? I don’t think you intended to troll this thread, but that is exactly what you are doing. I’m sick of wasting my time on you – come back when you can actually discuss this subject intelligently.
Ramen,
Sarah
Arrgh…somehow I truncated my #951 post,here’s the rest of it..
Repetitive DNA
telomeres
essential (
OK, I see it was due to the “less than” signs soooo..
Junk in Your Genome (cont.)
telomeres
essential (less than 1000 kb, insignificant)
Total Essential (so far) 4.5%
Total Junk (so far) 54%
* A small percentage (less than 1%) of all transposable elements have acquired a function in the human genome.
(NB lifted from Biochemistry Professor, Larry Moran’s informative “Sandwalk” blog, but this info is given in most reputable biochem, molec bio, genetics and even biology textbooks)
—
“I am going to make a point based on this assumption, but lets deal with this assumption first and allow people to comment on this.”
Maybe wanting to throw in a bit of Dembski’s “CSI” gooblygook and perhaps try and steer everyone toward some creationist “information theory” ? Away from past failures? The water runs deep here RSW, and so far you haven’t proved yourself to be a very competent swimmer.
Information Theory and Creationism
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/dembski.html
By the way you still haven’t given us a reference as to where you you got the information for basing your repeated assertions that a basic life form is dependent on “200 odd proteins” coming “together by sheer luck.” Since that was the premise of your many repeated probability posts, you really need to provide a reference. Or will you now admit that all those posts were nothing more than ignorant handwaving?
You also claimed you read the Talk Origins links, but then failed to address any of the information and refutations given there?
RSW,
Nice to see that after asking for a comment on morality and evil you ignore posts directly answering you. Ethics? Altruism? Plenty of godless societies acting in moral or ethical ways through laws which are arrived at through civil discourse, not religious discourse? The logical conclusion that your assertion that godlessness = evil means that 99% of human history and a huge proportion of nations and people today are immoral? What of the hindrances religion has made upon civic progression (gay rights? women’s rights? etc.)? No answer? Or you don’t want to answer?
As an archaeologist I find your particular assertion repugnant and at odds with the diversity of human history. I have also learnt from my partner who is trained as a psychologist of numerous experiments concerning altruism (especially in children) and morals. I cannot help but note that your views seem to be very much at odds with a humanist ethic as well the human sciences.
Lastly I would add that your questions relate to origins of life rather than evolution. Here’s a quick wikipedia quote:
“In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of living things change over time.”
Despite your honest attempts to make this a civil discussion (which I can very much appreciate), you are failing to acknowledge some very important and basic corrections. This tells me you are not in reality open to an honest debate.
I hope you read the link that Plumberbob has supplied, as it is a fine example of what someone who is both a skeptic and a christian is capable of – faith and reason. This is the kind of theologian which I doubt anyone here would have a problem with and who many agnostics and perhaps even atheists will actually respect. Another fine example of a theist who doesn’t automatically let his biases blind him is the social psychologist David G. Myers in his ‘A friendly letter to skeptics and atheists’. I consider myself an agnostic or default atheist and I at least could respect this author’s approach and would recommend it to other Atheists (and in fact fundamentalist Christians) looking for a moderate view from the other perspective. I wonder why you seem to refuse to read other rebuttals of ID from the secularist side such as Dawkins’ ‘The Blind Watchmaker’? You cannot claim objectivity when you insist on using tunnel vision.
Are you all filling out your creationist bingo cards?
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2007/09/bingo-creationi.html
RSW: I cringe every time some creationist comes up with the analogy of a rocket ship (in your case) or a stopwatch needing an inventor. Of course they do, because they are not alive and cannot procreate.
Every time I see an animal or plant, I don’t think “Only magic could have created this thing”! And that’s why ID is NOT science. You can’t pretend to trot out facts and statistics, then say “here’s where the miracle happened”!
P.S. RSW, what are the odds of seeing god make a miracle?
RSW (your posting # 949),
you wrote “Let me ask this question. At the core of self replicating life is DNA. DNA is the information on how to exactly replicate any given life form. This is information correct? as apposed to randomness. We only find this kind of information in the chemical world inside of life forms.”
Nope. All depends on what you wish to call “life”. In fact, we have, from most complex animal bodies to primitive bacterial cells to (lifeless?) viruses to selfish naked, yet infectious, RNA molecules nearly all stages of development from “primitive” naked nucleic acids – like viroids – to most complex cellular beings. As we have all evolutionary stages of the eye, another prominent argument from the creationists.
Please, take the time and google “viroids”!
I will have to slow down here guys and catch up on things. I am a little outnumbered here and there have been a lot of requests for things for me to read and comment on. I like all of you have a full docket, and now have quite a few articles that you have handed me to read. Like I said it will take me a while to read and give you a response. I do appreciate you taking the time to post the articles. I will try to get to them. Though I cannot promise to read every last one.
Nikkie, yes I do not hold a degree in science, if that helps you place my comments, that is fine. To answer your specific question about the 200 number it is an assumption of the data points needed to make up the DNA of a self replicating life form. If you think the assumption is wrong please feel free to comment on how many specific points of information need to be gathered into a DNA molecule of a simple life form. Apologies for not answering earlier. Lots of posts in between. I have been doing my best to keep up with things.
Regarding the moral discussion: Thanks again for all your posts. Let me try and clarify my point. And apologies if I don’t respond to every last point that others are making. I will try and respond in a general way.
Again backing up to the Dawkins statement that there is no such category as evil. Human behavior needs to be put through a different kind of Matrix in the Atheistic world view. Is this not correct? Not a religious one of I have a revealed set of laws from God. Laws that if I transgress I should feel guilt and remorse for and that God will ultimately punish me for. Rather in a system that we do not have God revealed Laws, I will face no final judge, nor do I need to feel guilt or shame for my behavior unless I feel that I should.
In a system without a God people can and have come up with some good laws to follow, as well as some bad laws to follow. Therefore there are atheists that live in ways that a Christian would consider akin to his system.
The point that I am making is that we are using different criteria and should like use different terms to describe these systems. Dawkins is throwing out the evil category. Therefore the gang rapists who as a group decided that rape was OK (not to say that atheists do this, it is just an ethical delema) A Christian would say that their behavior was evil, and that they should feel guilt and face justice. A atheist cannot say this was evil, They could say that this behavior violates their standards or standards for behavior of the majority of society. And then set up some sort of deturent for this to happen, and perhaps try to rehabilitate this person into your standards. There could be reparations for damages as well. But you cannot appeal to rapist and say that this was evil, or that they should feel guilt or shame for what they had done. All you can say that their behavior did not fit the standards of society, therefore it is considered abnormal and undesirable. We should not teach our children, stop that is wrong! We should say stop that it is abnormal, and not to societal standards!
They two different ways of describing and interacting with human behavior. Based on two totally different standards.