Was the world created by god, evolution or pasta?

Published October 5th, 2006 by Bobby Henderson


Simon Singh reviews The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster by Bobby Henderson.

The popularity of Intelligent Design over the past decade has been profoundly depressing for anybody who cares about science and rational thought. Supporters claim that some aspects of nature are so complicated that they cannot be explained by evolution, and therefore they conclude the existence of an entity who must have designed living beings. Although the criticisms of evolution are generally flawed and exaggerated, Intelligent Design is being taken seriously by many educationalists.

Link to the article.

345 Responses to “Was the world created by god, evolution or pasta?”

  1. J says:

    I have spluttered beer on my keyboard, now.

  2. nikkiee says:

    The authors of ID didn’t even come up with the ideas underlying it. They got them from Darwin himself:
    Darwin and the Problem of Eye Evolution
    “Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species (1882) had great difficulties with eye evolution and devoted an entire chapter to it, ‘‘Difficulties of the Theory,’’ in which he discusses ‘‘organs of extreme perfection and complication: To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for
    admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. But then he continues: Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”
    Walter Gehrings lab identified a master control gene (Pax6) responsible for eye development accross the animal kingdom, providing evidence of the “monophyletic origin of the eyes in evolution.”
    Walters name is extremely well known throughout the fields of molecular biology, genetics and development. (ect. ect.)
    No less than 6 Nobel Laureates have been associated with his lab. The following was taken from a Q & A featuring Walter Gehring at the this site.
    Q: Can you describe what that original common ancestor of all eyes might have been like?
    A: This was already postulated by Darwin, and it’s remarkable how correct he was, in retrospect.
    “We have found that there is the same underlying genetic basis in all animal phyla. You have the same genes that are involved in eye development.”
    But a drop in a ocean of proof verifying evelution. Could the ID “pushers” respond by producing some contradictary evidence?

  3. nikkiee says:

    “….organs of extreme perfection and complication:…”
    This my friends, is where they got the idea for their “Irreducible complexity” in their “theory”.

  4. nikkiee says:

    Oops! I should have referenced that top paragraph “Darwin and the Problem of Eye Evolution”
    “New Perspectives on Eye Development and the Evolution of Eyes and Photoreceptors”

  5. J says:

    Nikkiee, you are an absolute star and an FSM-send.
    By the way:
    ‘if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited’
    With grammar like that, Darwin obviously be a pirate…

  6. george says:

    i believe in god he is one and only one god i believe in because its my destiny to i m from lebanon

  7. J says:

    Hello George from Lebanon,
    Are you here because you want a debate? Are you willing to question your belief in god? Or do you just want to keep your belief the way it is, and were just dropping in to tell us what it is?
    Either way, best wishes. Let us know if you want a discussion
    (By the way, I’ve never spoken to anyone from Lebanon before, so it’s a pleasure to meet you. Isn’t the interenet marvellous? What would we do without the Information Noodle Highway? RAmen.)

  8. nikkiee says:

    Thanks J. Blush!! :)
    You really are far too kind. It’s more a matter of my familiarity with this specific area of reseach. Gehring is brilliant. His lab was the equal favourite of most in this field, against the two guys awarded this years prize, to take out the ’06 Nobel for his discovery of “Hox genes”. It would have been a very hard call for those who decide.
    Darwin was so far ahead of his time!

Leave a Reply