Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster appeals to Kansas School Board

A new voice has entered the debate on the teaching of alternatives to Darwinian evolution.

The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has now expressed its views in writing to Kansas. Initial response has been positive, as can be seen in the site.

 

I can't figrue out if the if the pirates vs. global warming chart or hand-drawn picture of their deity is more brilliant.

 

Well, there is just as much evidence to support this belief as the entire body of evidence in support of Christianity and traditional religions worldwide. Namely NONE!!!!

I like the belief better though - I always wanted to be a pirate.
As opposed to some harp-thumping bearded white robed guy with wings who never has sex again for all eternity.....

 

FSM will be a big hit with students in Kansas. I think that teaching of FSMism should best be coordinated with the lunch room serving noodles on that day.

 

Incorrect.

Silly caricature that has no basis in the Scriptures.

 

The next step will be to replace gravity by Intelligent Falling.

 

You know there is evidence of ID in much of what scientists see, both at the biomechanical level and elsewhere. There is no particluar reason to believe. based upon the current evidence, that macroevolution is an explanation for everything. I am not advocating a 6,000 year old Universe, I am not saying I believe this because "the Bible told me so." I'm just saying that the weight of evidence is not tipping dramatically in favor of a purely materialistic view of the Universe, and that most scoffers at ID are probably more ignorant of the underlying aspects of the debate than those at whom they scoff.

 

hmmm.... bunch of crackers, I guess.

Worth noting that as far as I know, none of the above quoted are Christians. Some definitely aren't, most I simply don't know their religious affiliation, if any. The thing is, Intelligent Design points to a Designer, though in and of itself not necessarily to a particular one. Of course, the simple fact of the universe's having a relatively proven beginning narrows the field at least some, but on the surface of it, that Designer could be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (which I certainly believe), or it could be DCV's "gods", though not likely a "spaghetti monster" which was contrived as a gag, and at any rate bears a suspicious resemblance to H. P. Lovecraft's description of Cthulu (Doubtless if he were alive, he'd either sue, or join spaghetti-ism with a serious leg-up on the rest of the hierarchy, having been the source of revelation! ).

Peace,

Matt

 

Indeed.

But there is science, and there is "not science." ID is most definitely not science.

 

Indeed.

Put another way, FSMism is just as much science as ID is, i.e.,


A slight alternative to the theory associated with FSM is that the FSM does not adjust the measurements, instead the FSM has already meticulously adjusted the amount of carbon-14 etc in the universe to match the observed values. I prefer this theory because should the omnipotent FSM be killed by a superior omnipotent monster then we will get the same readings on samples that are remeasured. Of course this is assuming that the new superior omnipotent monster doesn't adjust the measurements as they are being remeasured just to mess up the grand plan of the then deposed FSM.

 

Technically, you're right when you say that ID's not science. Science is defined in a very specific way: propositions must be falsifiable, explanatory by reference to natural law, testable, etc. And of course, it is so defined by scientists. Well and good.

But if there is something beyond the natural world, well, science couldn't explain it, and if scientists were seeing evidence of it in their test tubes and under their scanning electron microscopes and telescopes (and they almost certainly are), it would be discounted as it is not explanatory by reference to natural law.

So long as scientists are willing to admit that:

a). their discipline is not a search for the ultimate truth about the properties of the Universe or those factors that can have an influence thereupon,

b). not really a search for truth at all in any absolute sense, but merely those things that can be measured and explained in a materialistic manner, and

c). even if the weight of evidence does tip towards something outside the laws of nature existing and in fact influencing said laws (this day, I believe, is at hand), we will still ignore it and pretend that our discipline is all-sufficient for understanding pretty much everything of consequence,

then I have no problems with science per se. But my main bone of contention is that many of the louder scientists are unwilling to acknowledge the limits of their discipline. Among some of the more oft-quoted, we hear perfectly absurd statements about the limitless ability of science to be an all-sufficient explanation.

I am not impugning all scientists, I know several (and count them among my colleagues) who are reasonable and willing to understand the limits of their discipline and their personal powers of reason to understand so great a thing as our Universe and any mechanism or entity that could have created it, but there are others, such as Gould and the late Carl Sagan--those media darlings--who are unwilling to admit any limitations and unwilling to leave any room for anything that's not material. The only explanation for their mindset is that they enjoy their mantle as high priests of our post-Enlightenment world.

 

I don't recall Gould or Sagan ever mounting campaigns to prescribe what churches can or cannot preach. Their opponents don't exercise the same restraint when it comes to school curriculum.

 

No, but Sagan's "Cosmos", a beautiful and engaging coffeetable book, BTW, DOES go out of its way to slam religion.

He rightly attacks the blindness toward verifiable reality that religious institutions often not only adopt but ENFORCE (i.e. Galilleo) but in the process makes clear (to me, at least) that there is NO place for religion in the makeup of an educated, enlightened person.

That's just nonsense.

Now, Stephen Hawking and several of his colleagues have shown that a creator is unnecessary, or so they think. Their error, IMVHO, is that they restrict their "straw creator" to the moment of the (for want of a better term) Big Bang. Take a look at the last chapter of "A Brief History of Time" to see what I mean.

 

Since when do Gould and Sagan own the rights to school curricula?

As a matter of fact, my point was not about schools at all, my point was about the limits of science and scientists at least acknowledging when there is data that does not fit within prevailing scientific theories, and being willing to be scientific and objective about it, for goodness sakes, and admit this and go on, and allow the contradictory evidence to their prevailing theory to be taught alongside the theory itself. It just seems so...scientific.

You seem to think it's only Jerry Falwell-types that are challenging the stranglehold that Darwinism as an all-encompassing explanation of our origins has on much of the science curricula in our schools. Their ranks are also filled with scientists, many of them athiest and agnostic. You know, the types who actually are objective (and scientific) and don't have this high priest mantle to protect.

 

Hate to admit it , but you, my good man, are absolutely correct.

 

I want to thank George because I too have now been touched by his noodly appendage!

I must agree if ID is to be taught in schools then why not FSM.
Arrg!

People wonder why this country lacks in hard science education in the primary school level..this is why! we are too busy arguing if religion should also be taught in science class. Why not learn science in science class and religion in religion classes(outside of public school!)

Just my opinion, mateys!

 

I agree, let's stop teaching religion in science class. How about discontinuing the teaching of the religion of materialism as an all-encompassing explanation for the origins of the Universe?

How about teaching about the various dings in the theory of macro (note: I did not say micro) evolutionary theory, rather than adhering to it in an entirely religious, faith-based way regardless of what's seen at the biomechanical level?

 

Yeah, let's stop doing that! Wait: we never did that!
You see, what you call "materialism" is a very powerful ASSUMPTION in science: we assume all phenomena are natural, hence we can study them. Yeah, assessing whether this assumption is "true" in whatever sence you choose to give this word is explicitly outside of science; but the assumption worked, and worked, and worked over, and over, and over again. In times of, oh I don't know, Ancient Greeks: was a lighting a "scientific evidence of supernatural" or an unstudied phenomena?

How about teaching the various dings in physics, then? I mean, as far as I recall, Newtonian mechanics is utterly contradictory to say Maxwell electricity laws or the behavior of light, as taught in high school. Hell, basic ARYTHMETIC have dings - ever heard of Godel result? Care to teach THAT in high school!

Having "dings" is N-O-R-M-A-L for any schientific theory. Electricity is a "theory", yet my computer works remarkably well.

 

If we teach that an all-encompassing explanation for the Unvierse is materialistic (as Gould, Hawking, Sagan et. al. advocate), then that is based on faith, and ignores volumes of data that contradict it, both at the cosmic and biomechanical level.

Actually, it's my understanding that Newtonian mechanics is wrong in that it does not provide a true explanation for what's actually going on--it's just that we don't notice the problems with the theory unless certain circumstances are present--speeds approaching that of light. And yes, of course we should teach that in high school, they should learn a few rudimentary things about Relativity, being as it is, the prevailing theory.

They should also teach about the strange manner in which the laws and forces of the Universe, such as the Strong Nuclear, to name just one of many, seem almost fine-tuned to produce matter, and hence, life. They should teach about the numerous apparent irreducible complexities seen at the biomechanical level. They should teach about the strange and difficult-to-explain gaps in the fossil record.

In short, they should teach the truth, as near as we can see it, based on observation, rather than that which is the product of their "faith", that is, the faith that in the end, in spite of what scientists are now seeing in their microscopes and telescopes to the contrary, that all will turn out to have a purely naturalistic explanation.

 

I'm not sure what 'intelligent design' theories are supposed to be explaining.

The fundamental fact of being, the fact that there is something rather than nothing?

The fact that being takes the form it does and not something else?

The existence of ordered and functional systems among the things that exist?

Addressing the last issue, it seems to me that some ordered systems are the result of intentional human action, while many more (probably the vast majority) are not.

Intelligent design theory seems to be an analogy. It treats all ordered systems as analogous to the products of human design, then posits some occult super-human designer, hidden somewhere but known through his works.

I have several objections to this rhetorical strategy.

First of all, it isn't scientific. Science tries to explain phenomena in terms of the natural order. But most (all?) forms of intelligent design theory posit a hypothetical designer that lies outside that order. The hypothetical designer is supernatural, not natural. While appealing the supernatural might not be fatal in religious contexts, it doesn't seem appropriate in science.

Second, intelligent design is anthropomorphic and anthropocentric. It seeks to tame the unknown by imagining that the answer consists in human beings just like us, writ large. We kind of sneer when we read about ancient sun and storm gods, but that age-old process of mythology creation is essentially what's happening here too.

Third, if we are honest, we have to admit that we know absolutely nothing about this hypothetical designer. It's just a deus-ex-machina that's being produced with a flourish in order to paper over the many things that we don't currently understand. Since the proposed explanation has no content, it can be introduced to do anything and explain anything. That tells us nothing.

Fourth, intelligent design theory is a pseudo-explanation. Successful explanations reduce the unknown to the known. They leave us knowing more than we did before we heard the explanation. But positing a totally unknown supernatural entity with the capability of doing anything obviously raises more questions than it answers. Now we are stuck with having to explain the origin and nature of the god. We seem to be moving backwards, not forwards.