Creature's picture irks Board of Ed member (FSM alert)

The Wichita Eagle ^ | April 13, 2006 | retMD

[retMD]

State Board of Education member Connie Morris took exception Wednesday to a picture of a made-up creature that satirizes the state's new science standards hanging on a Stucky Middle School teacher's door.

Fellow board member Sue Gamble told The Eagle that Morris asked for the picture to be removed.

The creature, called the Flying Spaghetti Monster, is the creation of Bobby Henderson of Corvallis, Ore. It looks like a clump of spaghetti with two eyes sticking out of the top and two meatballs flanking the eyes.

[freedumb2003]

Without context, saying that it deals in the realm of belief is meaningless. Your statement could apply to virtually anything, with or without empirical evidence.

Exactly the same for any statement of belief.

[elkfersupper]

And the opinion of millions of others whose faith is not shattered by revelations that seem to conflict with a sometimes spurious translation of a thousands-year-old attempt to explain the origins of the universe and mankind.

[mlc9852]

And millions believe Genesis.

Happy Easter.

[csense]

Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory. -- William Dembski

Checkmate on that point. [csense gets up from table] Concession stand is open Professor, my treat....

[stands2reason]

While I am far from a pastafarian, I will admit to strongly preferring only fresh-grated Parmesan cheese. No green containers of pre-milled cheese product for me, thanks.

Orthodox, huh? I've heard how strict y'all can be. Is it true you guys stone those who dare to use canned tomatoes?

[Old_Mil]

I wish the pro-science side would just drop this FSM nonsense and focus on the merits of the argument. They're strong enough by themselves.

Sticking to the merits of the argument would be a good thing, but after engaging in this discussion for some time, I've come to the conclusion that it really isn't a scientific debate. If it was, the lack of empirical evidence for the keystones of evolution would have settled the issue a long time ago.

Even Stephen J. Gould - no friend of the ID movement - states: Evolutionary biology has been severely hampered by a speculative style of argument that records anatomy and ecology and then tries to construct historical or adaptive explanations for why this bone looked like that or why this creature lived here. These speculations have been charitably called "scenarios"; they are often more contemptuously, and rightly, labeled "stories" (or "just-so stories" if they rely on the fallacious assumption that everything exists for a purpose). Scientists know that these tales are stories; unfortunately, they are presented in the professional literature where they are taken too seriously and literally.

Furthermore, not all IDers believe that God created the earth in 7 days. Some believe that God's role was limited to that of original genetic engineer in the distant past. Yet, evolutionists resist even this idea despite their lack of any reasonable alternative revealing that their goal is not to explain the origin of life, but rather to explain the origin of life without God.

[csense]

Without context, saying that it deals in the realm of belief is meaningless. Your statement could apply to virtually anything, with or without empirical evidence.

Exactly the same for any statement of belief.

I'm specifically referring to your explanation of the parody, which, given that explanation, the parody could just as easily be satirizing any given scientific theory, including evolution.

[stands2reason]

It must suck to not have an argument and to be forced to use ad hominems...

[stands2reason]

Forgive me, I misunderstood you. I reread the post to which you replied, so now I get your point.

[stands2reason]

How is ID falsifiable? That's the only way it can fall into the realm of science.

[freedumb2003]

the parody could just as easily be satirizing any given scientific theory, including evolution.

You still don't lknow what a "theory" is, do you? It is more than mere belief.

[FreedomPoster]

I'm not that extreme, though I know those folks exist. I do avoid Ragu for some of the better sauce selections, though. ;-P

[csense]

You still don't lknow what a "theory" is, do you? It is more than mere belief.

Actually, the functioning problem here is that you don't what an argument is. Not to worry though, you're in good company, since many people don't.

[Right Wing Professor]

Very handsome of you, sir, maybe just a finger or two of bourbon....

[freedumb2003]

Actually, the functioning problem here is that you don't what an argument is. Not to worry though, you're in good company, since many people don't.

I coached debate. The problem is you so farare working on 100% assertion.

Your avoidance tactic, although cute to your little friends, is meaningless.

A belief is unfoudned, a theory has a basis and logic.

The FSM mocks the introduction of belief into the scientific realm.

I wouldn't try to assail my logic again, lest I point out what a fool you are making out of yourself.

[freedumb2003]

Yet, evolutionists resist even this idea despite their lack of any reasonable alternative revealing that their goal is not to explain the origin of life, but rather to explain the origin of life without God.

Evolutionists are open to a scientific alternative theory. ID (Creationisms retared cousin) is NOT a scientific alternate theory.

TTOE is silent on God. MOst Evo's are Christian.

[csense]

Evolutionists are open to a scientific alternative theory.

This begs the question of whether "Evolutionists" are open to an alternate title. Waht do you think...

[freedumb2003]

This begs the question of whether "Evolutionists" are open to an alternate title. Waht do you think...

I don't know about being a proposal that contains its own answer, but it may raise the question.

I don't care what it is called. The alternate theory needs to be grounded in science. So far there are no alternatives proposed (ID apologetics, amusing as they are, notwhistanding.

[Hacksaw]

Why do you say Christians? If fun is being made, it equally includes Jews and Muslims.

Not really, unless they start mocking Mohammed and Abraham.

[curiosity]

Furthermore, not all IDers believe that God created the earth in 7 days.

I know of that. Furthermore, all the leaders of the ID movement accept common descent.

Some believe that God's role was limited to that of original genetic engineer in the distant past. Yet, evolutionists resist even this idea despite their lack of any reasonable alternative revealing that their goal is not to explain the origin of life, but rather to explain the origin of life without God.

Nonsense. The above is wrong on at least two levels.

First, "evolutionsits", by which I presume you mean evolutionary biologists, are not concerned with the origin of life. That is not their field of study. Evolutionary biology only deals with how life, once it developed, changed over time.

Second, scientists studying the origin of life, i.e. abiogenesis, don't "resist" the idea that God was somehow involved. Rather, being scientists, they are simply seeking to determine the physical and chemical processes that were involved in bringing life into existence. Whether God is behind these processes is a question outside the scope of science, and therefore they cannot address it.