Academic Endorsements – page 2

“MMMMMmmmmm, spaghetti”
–H. Neville, Ph.D.

“As a former art historian, I must say that FSM wins hands down over ID when it comes to the complexity of its iconography. ID has produced little aesthetic response to its point of view. FSM on the other hand has stimulated a spontaneous outpouring of highly expressive art.”
–Laura Jones, Ph.D.

“On Science, Evolution and Intelligent Design What needs to be taught in the schools is how to evaluate scientific evidence, make decisions and think critically. Science is always in flux. New discoveries are always changing our view of current knowledge, refining and fine tuning our view of nature and the world. I came across a factoid the other day that the average Renaissance man encountered in a lifetime the amount of information found in one issue of the New York Times Newspaper. Today, the average person, including the average teenager, is immersed in data from the moment they get up in the morning until they go to bed. They need to be taught skills to help them sort through this amazing morass of information of varying levels of worth. Concrete ?truisms? such as creationism or that relative dressed up in a suit and tie called intelligent design that cannot bend or adapt to new incoming knowledge only do the children of this nation a disservice. Evolution is based on scientific facts. Intelligent design is a form of marketing. The truth must be told.”
–Judith Challis, Ph.D.

“The riducule of FSMism by believers in ID is a beautifully ironic hypocracy. It is a classic case of faith-blindness and the worst of intellectual behaviour that can be observed in religion. In this instance the believers in ID run roughshod over the believers in FSMism by claiming their ‘Faith’ is correct and decrying the FSM ‘Faith’ as wrong. It is not possible to scientifically qualify ‘Faith’ and thus a comparison of ‘Faith’ in this fashion is meaningless and offensive. If no evidence can be provided to support either then both are equally valid or invalid, regardless of how angry or indignant the supporters may be. ”
–Andy Parsons, Ph.D.

“As a research scientist, I am strongly in favor of the simplest explanations inferred from empirical data. It’s quite clear to me that the evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s creation of the Universe is as good as that for Intelligent Design, as accepted by the Kansas school board. I therefore wholeheartedly support your letter, in that FSMism should get equal treatment under the auspices of the state government.”
— Brock M. Tice, Ph.D.

“I hope no one confuses the terrible and naïve notion of ID with what it means to be Christian. In a way, ID represents a very flawed unChristian God who was incompetent to the task of creating capable natural laws, and so resorted to post-creation tinkering, thus giving the impression of supernatural design. Yet, if supernaturalism be called for, then the pasta family of theologies seems the most plausible, and unquestionably the tastiest with cheese.”
–Stephen D. Unwin, Ph.D., Author of “The Probability of God” (Three Rivers Press, 2004)

“Few people realize that the very 2nd word in the bible is mistranslated. The original Hebrew says ” in A beginning…” whereas most translations say “in THE beginning…” And therein lies the Truth: there was more than one beginning. In fact, there were three: The 1st followed Evolution as discovered by Darwin; the 2nd followed Intelligent Design; but the 3rd and most successful is the present FSMism discovered by you. So, you see, teaching all three is imperative!”
— Dr. Uriel Goldberg

“Having now perused the many facets of Pastafarianism (and being both a scientist and a specialist in the anthroplogy of religion), I believe that there is great scope for women in this religion. Clearly the FSM has aspects of both male and female, with both “noodly appendages” and two round meatballs which clearly represent the Breasts of the Great Mother Goddess. Given this inclusion of diversity, I feel that Pastafarianism has MORE to offer budding students than ID, which is notably narrow in its outlook.”
–Susan Johnston, PhD

“As a professional paleontologist, I need to emphasize that evolutionary theory has nothing to do with explaining the origin of life. Evolution is the scientific explanation that explains the diversity of life that we see all around us. It is usually defined very simply as a change in gene frequencies through time. It’s not about origins.

Pastafarianism attempts to explain the origins of the universe, and does so with as much or more validity (and more gusto!) than ID creationism. And maybe many people find a sense of ultimate purpose in the universe by believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But such beliefs are based upon faith, not science. In fact, considering His active distortions of observable data, science cannot comment upon these beliefs at all, and must proceed in it’s usual manner — testing hypotheses based upon observable data. Whether these data have been altered by His Noodliness is moot; a difference which makes no difference is not difference.

Pastafarianism does not constitute a scientific theory, despite it’s apparent adherence to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle regarding the interactions of observer and observed. It should not be taught as science … unless, of course, ID creationism is also taught as science, in which case all bets are off.

Best of luck with your web page. I’m off to The Old Spaghetti Factory for worship.”
–E. Scott

“As a neuroscientist and clinical psychologist, I have often been struck by how the brain resembles pasta. Clearly, the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory is worthy of deep thought. Or at least a side order of garlic toast. Which is more than I can say about ID, which, as St. Sigmund taught, should be subservient to EGO (Equally Goofy Observations).”
–James Blackburn, Ph.D.

“A colleague told me of the gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

At first, frankly, as a professional astronomer, I was skeptical. What scientific proof does Bobby have of the existence of His Noodlyness, or must I take it on faith alone (as, of course, I do with the theory of evolution).

But then I thought back to one of our pictures taken with the Hubble Space Telescope; you can see it at:

This picture shows the nebula IC 4406, which as you can see is filled with Noodly structures! Not only does this image scientifically PROVE the existence of the FSM, I believe it shows His home in space.”
–Howard Bond, Ph.D.

Continue to Academic Endorsements – page 3

98 Responses to “Academic Endorsements – page 2”

1 2 3 13
  1. CMCC says:

    Is this a joke bobby cuz its really funny. send me a reply.


  2. M.L.B. says:

    What about freaturing the evidence provided by the Raman Noodle Contest held last year. Who ever won that? I think it was Science Creative Quarterly or somthing that was sponsoring it. Rather than an endorsement we could have real science proof presented.

  3. Keith Johnson says:

    ‘Few people realize that the very 2nd word in the bible is mistranslated. The original Hebrew says ” in A beginning…”’

    In other words this could be translated as, “Once upon a time. . .”

  4. the Reaper says:

    Yes that is true Keith Johnson, but if you think about it, before there was anything else, there was fear or the absence of, because without that then oyu dont have a base argument

  5. beleiver Dave says:

    hey guys i am new to the website and religion but i am a strong beleiver and am doing everything in my power to convince the world that FSM is the almighty god i am open to any helpfull pointers or hints or even just general knowledge if you guys wanna e-mail me my e-mail is [email protected] and my i say that its fuckin awesome to see good hard scientific facts and proof be posted to show those fuckin pricks who laugh at us and say we are a joke well you know what i say ” fuck you assholes i pitty you and your closeminded ideals one day soon the number of pirates will be at great enough level that you fuckwits will be scared shitless” RAMEN ON!!

  6. Karl says:

    Who needs AK47 toting moslems or negro hanging cross burning Evangelists when this brave new religion puts the FUN and the MENTAL back into Fundamentalism.

    fun‧da‧mental‧ism  /ËŒfÊŒndəˈmÉ›ntlˌɪzÉ™m/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[fuhn-duh-men-tl-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation

    –noun 1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
    2. the beliefs held by those in this movement.
    3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.


    [Origin: 1920–25, American; fundamental + -ism]

    —Related forms
    fun‧da‧men‧tal‧ist, noun, adjective Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
    Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006

  7. nikkiee says:

    I thought fundamentalist was a convergence of “fund a mentalist”, as in give money to people with mental problems?

  8. Andrei Smirnov says:

    As a scientist and researcher I consider the FSM theory to be a brilliant case of a generic scientific religion that should be taught in all schools of religious orientation, including Kansas. I would also recommend to include the concept of Evil to make the theory complete, logically consistent, and, above all, more amusing for the children. In the proposed concept the totality of the spirit must be equal to zero (nothing). This is because zero
    requires no further explanation. Since FSM, pirates, and such represent a positive spirit (Good) then there should be an equal amount of a negative spirit (Evil). The collision between the two leads to annihilation. A constant struggle between the two creates diversity and promotes thinking. Although possible in principle, total annihilation rarely happens because the outcome would be too boring to exist.

1 2 3 13

Leave a Reply