Flying Spaghetti Monster theory
This open letter to the Kansas School Board takes it to task for teaching “Intelligent Design” (Biblical Creationism tarted up in scientific dress) in schools. The author points out that there are several competing theories that Kansas could teach its students, including the popular thesis that the universe was created by a “Flying Spaghetti Monster.” There are pictures, too.
From it:
I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming to long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.
Electro Rock Said,
June 22, 2005 @ 6:15 pm
I am vehemently opposed to descriptions of intelligent design in school settings, particularly those interested in scienctific reasoning or critical thinking. Not only isn’t the evidence there, the proponents have no interest in obtaining evidence in any formal manner.
That said, in the interest of full disclosure, and to say something more valuable than the ostensibly straw argument that intelligent design is “Biblical Creationism tarted up in scientific dress,” read the following article from the New Yorker – “Master Planned” by H. Allen Orr
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050530fa_fact
While it doesn’t work to convince anyone of the utility of intelligent design, it does suggest that there is potentially more to it than the “on the seventh day…” Not enough to hang your science hat on, of course, but more perhaps than you’d expect to find in your church pew.
OK, danger, now go ahead and replace each verb in my comment with the words spermburp.
Electro Rock Said,
June 22, 2005 @ 6:16 pm
Oops – first sentence should’ve read:
“I am vehemently opposed to descriptions of intelligent design in school settings, particularly those schools that are in any way interested in scientific reasoning or critical thinking.”
A. Rabbit Said,
June 22, 2005 @ 7:08 pm
Thanks for the link to the article ERS. It was well worth the time to read it and helps create some understanding instead of potentially closing the conversation.
I’m finding more and more than people are losing the ability to effectively discuss issues like this. Too often in the evolution vs. creationism debate, the Darwinists come off as pompous asses which only serves to gird the loins of those on the opposite side of the argument. Boxen’s “tarting up” comment and the spaghetti god letter, while witty, only serve to irritate the opposition.
All this being said, I have decided to disown my family tree of primates and whatnot and am sending my life savings to the local FSM temple post haste. All these years of searching for the right religion – who knew it would start with pasta.
Boxen Said,
June 23, 2005 @ 11:16 am
I enjoyed reading that New Yorker article. Thanks for posting it.
ER:
This implies a continuum of proposals with religious literalism at one end and scientific theory on the other with a threshold of scientific acceptability somewhere in between. This isn’t the case. One requirement for consideration as scientific theory is falsifiability. ID lacks this, therefore, is not a scientific theory. However I do agree that ID tries to avoid the details of sectarianism. Because of this, it enjoys support among members of a wider variety of religions.
AR:
Context is important here. A public school’s science classroom is not the place to discuss ID for the same reason that it’s not the place to discuss the interpretations of Mondrian’s paintings or the whorishness of Paris Hilton. None have scientific relevance. That’s not to say that they shouldn’t be discussed at all, even in school. It’s a fine topic for a class in politics because of the church/state implications. It would be a good philosophical discussion because it can be reduced to epistemology.
AR:
With an audience of roughly 5, I’m not that concerned. But seriously, while the perception of the advocates of both positions is independent of their positions’ veracity, it does have an impact on each position’s popularity. The perception of elitism of the scientific community promotes ignorance of science in the general population, especially in this country.
A. Rabbit Said,
June 23, 2005 @ 2:17 pm
Not only does the perception of scientific elitism promote ignorance, it does so by allowing those who would promote religious zealotry to then use that ignorance to further their arguements.
I think that the audience here is generally on the same wavelength, so in the long run, this discussion is really nothing more than preaching to the choir. Somehow those who want to discuss and debate these issues in a public forum (school committee meetings, editorial pages, any place where both sides are paying attention), need to do so without casting aspersions and mocking the other side of the argument. People might like being elitist on some level, but no one wants to be the subject of elitist scorn.
But by all means, keep the witty comments coming in this forum.