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

1,024 Responses to “Academic Endorsements – page 1”

  1. plumberbob says:

    OK folks, who wound-up that uneducated troll, RSW again? By his own admission, he knows nothing of mathematics, but he still throws about bits of statistical jargon to impress us. He evidently will read nothing that hasn’t been referenced in “Of Pandas and People”. I’ll risk the wrath of other Pastafarians here by again posting a link that has a good comment by Southern Ptarmigan (ten down in the comments thread). Here’s a Christian Evangelist who has this issue in perspective:

    I wouldn’t expect that this time and space wasting troll would ever spend the effort to understand this Nova program:

    He seems so preprogrammed that he’s a prefect fit into The Authoritarians mold:

    I am not the least concerned by people who ask questions, but the people who scare me are the ones who have The Answer:


  2. Edward says:

    hmph. No understanding of psychology, history, chemistry, biology, or statistics. Seems articulate, but fails to aknowledge any ernest criticisms and continues to argue in a circular fashion without understanding giant flaws in logic. Concludes that anyone without God (of course the christian version) has no basis on which to establish any morals. Concludes that all irreligious political regimes in history were based on evolution. Concludes that evolution is based on ‘chance’ and ‘randomness’ and that it is improbable. Concludes that a magic man in the sky directly guiding every form of life past and present is the most probable solution. Concludes that mountains of evidence for evolution is all wrong. Concludes that occam’s razor is wrong. Concludes that evolution and abiogenesis are the same thing. Concludes that evolution and thus science in general must be a threat to chirstianity. Concludes that most other religions and populations in the world other than fundamental christianity must be wrong to accept evolution.

    Verdict: troll. Unlikely to ever change mind or engage in honest debate due to belief structure. Unlikely even to listen to other theists who are supportive of evolution. Likely to continue to use pseudo-science and bad theology to back up arguments in circular fashion. Avoid. Waste of time.

  3. Noodilicious says:

    Darwin, let’s add this recent (published today in Nature) research to that paper:

    Chemist Shows How RNA Can Be the Starting Point for Life

    Edward @963
    Bingo? Yeah that was too easy! I think they should change the rules a little and require prediction of which line will be filled first!

    Here’s a bit of a general guide

    Creationist’ Tactics

  4. michael says:

    i am now in the philippines spreading the word. it is hard here due to their devout belief in catholicism but i am happy to report that i have just tonight found my first convert

  5. IST says:

    A wonderful miracle happened tonight!
    As I set down in the dinner table, His Noodliness appeared in front of me in all His glory, sitting upon a majestic white disc.
    Repent your sins and rejoice as He levitates among us! Spread the word, so every children of His creation may hear it!!!!

  6. Wench Nikkiee says:

    I think they’re monitoring us.

    “Oh, No! It’s Making Well-Reasoned Arguments Backed With Facts! Run!”

  7. home page says:

    nice site d00d…

    heres mine…

  8. Bari Rigs says:

    All hail the fullness of the non-diety deity. Can we have some more? :-[)

Leave a Reply