Kansas School Board Responses to the Open Letter
Response from Mrs. Janet Waugh – District 1 – Received 6/25/05
From: JWaugh1052@[xxxxxxx]
To: bobby.henderson@gmail.com
Date: Jun 25, 2005 6:34 AM
Subject: Response from a member of the Kansas Board of Education
Thanks for your comments about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and all the supporters who have sent their support to members of the Kansas Board of Education. I am supporting the recommendations of the science committee and am currently in the minority. I think your theory is wonderful and possibly some of the majority members will be willing to support it.
Thanks again,
Janet Waugh District 1
Response from Mrs. Sue Gamble – District 2 – Received 6/26/05
From: msgamble@[xxxxxxxxx]
To: bobby.henderson@gmail.com
Date: Jun 26, 2005 6:34 PM
Subject: Reply
Dear Mr. Henderson, Thanks for your message. Thanks for the laugh. Your web site is fascinating. I will add your theory to a long list of alternative theories I intend to introduce when it is appropriate. I am practicing how to do this with a straight face which is difficult since it’s such a ridiculous subject; it is also very sad that we are even having the discussion.
I will be one of the four member minority who will be voting against the flawed science standards currently being proposed by the six member majority.
Sincerely,
Sue Gamble
Response from Mrs. Carol Rupe – District 8 – Received 8/16/05
From: Carol Rupe
To: bobby.henderson@gmail.com
Date: Aug 16, 2005 8:19 AM
Subject: Kansas State Board of Education
Dear Mr. Henderson,
In the midst of the sad circumstances of having our science standards lowered, you and your legion of fellow FSM followers have offered wonderful comic relief. Rather than the form letters which we often receive on other topics, each FSM letter has been clever and unique. I responded to several at first, but now there have just been too many. I am a member of the Kansas State Board of Education and have voted repeatedly to maintain excellent science standards. Last week was the vote to send a new draft (written by the 6 conservative members) out for external review. The four of us on the board who are moderates were in the minority on the vote. The group of science teachers and university professors who had written the original standards (before they were changed) have now asked that their names be withdrawn from the document. The new version changes the very definition of science from “seeking natural explanations” to “seeking logical explanations”. That is why I think FSMism is able to be included. It is as “logical” as any other theory.
The final vote on the standards will be in October. We will be in Lawrence, Kansas for that meeting. Those of us who are moderates on the board are trying to have the meeting in the Natural History Museum at the University of Kansas. We think that would be an appropriate setting for the occasion. We welcome you to be in attendance.
We have received thousands of emails from scientists around the world. At first, they all tried to explain good science to us. After the vote last week, however, they have resorted to calling us hillbillies and morons. And those are the nice letters!
Thank you for adding levity to this situation. You have developed quite a following. I was wondering if we could reverse the effects of global warming if we started breeding pirates.
Sincerely,
Carol Rupe
P.S. I ordered a Kansas Museum of Science t-shirt. I may just have to wear it to a board meeting.
From: Mrs. Kathy Martin, District 6
“It is a serious offense to mock God.”
@J
.
God: “Oh, and may I introduce my son, the blood-sucking, flesh-eating zombie from hell which I came up with as a mere after thought. Sadly, these humans make such a big fuss over it.”
Sorry, was that a bit harsh, or what?
.
@ J
.
Several attempts to reach you via email, concerning your Open Letter, have failed. I would be willing to add my name to the list but I’m not sure how to go about it. Any suggestions.
One of my 14 year old physics students asked me:”Sir – what is the meaning of life”. Quick as a flash I replied “for a biologist it is to have sex and keep the species going. For a Christian it is to love each other.”
What would His-Noodleyness say?
What would the diehard ID fans say?
@ J
‘vestigial’-style organs doesnt mean that they had no use at the time of creation. And its reasonable to think that if something works, then its perfectly OK to repeat the process. Apperantly God thinks its OK since thats how he created us.
Styu2, are your biologist and Christian responses necessarily mutually exclusive? I don’t think they have to be. I don’t know what diehard ID fans believe is the meaning of life, and I haven’t read m7y Gospel enough to know what the FSM says is the meaning of life, but I imagine it would have something to do with metaphorically sailing the seven seas and generally having a merry time. That’s pretty simplistic, I know, but that’s about as close as I can bend the tenets of Pastafarianism to my own answer, which is “to be”. If reproduction and love enter the picture, great!
Styu2,
.
At the risk of sounding all existential, the meaning of life for any person is the meaning they decide. So, an answer to your student’s question would be something along the lines of, “What do you think?”
.
Now let me put my pirate hat on. A Pastafarian might say, “Enjoy life and try not to be a prick.”
.
An ID fan might say, “I don’t know. God hasn’t told me what to think yet.”
.
OEJ
Mocking God? sounds like a serious offense. Of course, that all depends on your view of God. Is God a omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being, or is he a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It’s your choice… I just caution everyone NOT to put God, FSM, Allah, Buddha in a box…either way he/she is far greater than us and not always to be understood. Does a flu virus understand humans…probably not…do we understand the true nature of the divine being…probably not…
@Devils Advocate,
.
The only reason we had the idea of a God was because it was assumed that the only way to make something complex was by having something more complex to produce it. That assumption can no longer be used due to evolution coming along.
.
Now you are correct that a God could have done all these things but the odds are stacked against it, in the same way the odds that the Green elephants ruled the universe before the orange piglets took over. Now if I started preaching such things, then rightly so, I’d be mocked.
.
In fact the odds that a God exist are so small that I’d write it mathematically as one over infinity, which as everyone knows this tends to zero.
.
Saying things like “genetic homologies is just further evidence of a common creator. Just because different species share traits doesnt mean that they have a common ancestor, its just means that god was lazy” is just pointless as it is all but a proven fact that many of mans illnesses come from the fact that he has evolved.
.
As it is said the imperfections within species prove evlution better then the perfection parts. IF God created us (and many other species) then he buggered up big time, blind spots, appendix that are not needed, illnesses due to certian parts of our bone structure not set up for upright walking.