Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution Debate creates monster [Flying Spaghetti monster, to be exact]
Lawrence Journal-World ^ | August 24, 2005 | Scott Rothschild

Posted on 08/24/2005 6:51:49 AM PDT by Quick1

Topeka — From Darwin to intelligent design to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The debate over teaching evolution in Kansas public schools has caught the attention of a cross-country Internet community of satirists.

In the past few weeks, hundreds of followers of the supreme Flying Spaghetti Monster have swamped state education officials with urgent e-mails.

They argue that since the conservative majority of the State Board of Education has blessed classroom science standards at the behest of intelligent design supporters, which criticize evolution, they want the gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster taught.

“I’m sure you realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory,” writes Bobby Henderson, a Corvallis, Ore., resident whose Web site, www.venganza.org, is part FSM tribute and part job search. Karl Gehring/Journal-World Illustration

Karl Gehring/Journal-World Illustration

“It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster,” he wrote to the education board.

Henderson did not return a telephone call for comment. He says in his letter that it is disrespectful to teach about the FSM without wearing “full pirate regalia.”

Board member Bill Wagnon, a Democrat, whose district includes Lawrence, said he has received more than 500 e-mails from supporters of FSM.

“Clearly, these are just supreme satirists. What they are doing is pointing out that there is no more sense to intelligent design than there is to a Flying Spaghetti Monster,” Wagnon said.

Intelligent design posits that some aspects of biology are so complex, they point toward an intelligent creator.

ID proponents helped shepherd a report and hearings that have resulted in science standards that criticize evolution and have put Kansas in the middle of international attention on the subject.

John Calvert, of Lake Quivira, the lawyer who was instrumental in writing the science standards that criticize evolution, said he had seen the FSM e-mails, and was not impressed.

“You can only use that misinformation so long,” Calvert said. Calvert said the science standards do not promote intelligent design, but show that evolution has its critics.

Wagnon and the three other board members who support evolution have written Henderson back, saying they appreciated the comic relief but that they were saddened that the science standards were being changed to criticize evolution.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Political Humor/Cartoons; US: Kansas
KEYWORDS: christianbashing; crevolist; evolution; humorlesscreos; liberalbigots; libertarianbigots; noodlyappendage; religion; religiousintolerance; satire; usedfood
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380381-396 next last
To: CobaltBlue
I found this interesting: When dealing with difficulties, such as the elaborate structure of the human eye, Darwin had chosen his words carefully: if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. my theory would absolutely break down." Wilberforce was not impressed. What kind of logic was it that asked leave to advance "as true any theory which cannot be demonstrated to be actually impossible?"

One problem is that some exponents of ID are simply taking up Darwin's wager, while others are adherents to Wilberforce's natural philosophy. Not many are "young earth" fundamentalists but some of their supporters seem to be. Many scientists who oppose ID seem unaware that this debate ever happened, or that they belong to a school of philosophy.

341 posted on 08/24/2005 8:38:52 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: spunkets

"When life begins (after conception)" is a fact of science related to biology.

When existence begins is asking "which came first the chicken or the egg".

Some have immediate practical concerns and some are rountable bullsh*t.


342 posted on 08/25/2005 1:05:51 AM PDT by weegee (The Rovebaiting by DUAC must stop. It is nothing but a partisan witchhunt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Hm. And what of Copernicus BEFORE Galileo?
343 posted on 08/25/2005 1:07:33 AM PDT by weegee (The Rovebaiting by DUAC must stop. It is nothing but a partisan witchhunt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith

How much of what you learned in chemistry was theoretical?

Did they describe which elements came first in the big bang or did they stick to just the molecular structure?


344 posted on 08/25/2005 1:12:00 AM PDT by weegee (The Rovebaiting by DUAC must stop. It is nothing but a partisan witchhunt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: anguish

Care to point to a public school library with a Bible? Seeing as how there are issues when students try to write papers on religious figures, I doubt that it is common in schools. Same with prayer groups.


345 posted on 08/25/2005 1:13:43 AM PDT by weegee (The Rovebaiting by DUAC must stop. It is nothing but a partisan witchhunt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
If it is not a child, because it is forming in a woman's innards, and therefore a "part" of her, what is it when it forms in a test tube?

Is it any less human for not sharing the same "experience" as the majority of mankind?

Since the mother's life is not in danger when a fetus is conceived in a test tube or a petri dish, who should decide if it is allowed to live or die? Does the "father" get equal say with the "mother"?
346 posted on 08/25/2005 1:17:20 AM PDT by weegee (The Rovebaiting by DUAC must stop. It is nothing but a partisan witchhunt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: weegee
Care to point to a public school library with a Bible?
Most would have it. It's a bit difficult for me to point out a specific school sitting all the way over in Sweden, but I can however refer you to Roberts v. Madigan (1990) in which the judge deems removal of the Bible from the school library unconstitutional.

Snippet: “In this age of enlightenment, it is inconceivable that the Bible should be excluded from a school library. The Bible is regarded by many to be a major work of literature, history, ethics, theology and philosophy...”

347 posted on 08/25/2005 2:17:08 AM PDT by anguish (while science catches up.... mysticism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

To: curiosity; Gumlegs; wideawake
Everytime something IC has been shown to be evolvable he either, a) ignores it b) claims it's not really IC c)demands every last detail of its evolution be described or d)ignores it.

In other words, he follows the traditional creationist playbook. I note that wideawake seems to be using approach "A" in response to your well-written post on why "IC" has fallen and it can't get up.

348 posted on 08/25/2005 2:31:09 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: js1138
meltdown placemarker

Thanks. I hadn't been following this thread, and I love to watch what happens when devotion to unreality is rewarded.

349 posted on 08/25/2005 2:33:57 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: Abogado
[Evolutionary computation techniques utilising darwinian evolution have been used to search for solutions to real-life problems. There have been patented circuit designs produced, and a genetic algorithm has been used to design wing shape on aircraft. In many cases the evolutionary algorithm manages to find solutions human designers haven't even thought of.]

Anybody else see the irony?

No, because I actually understand the field, and know that what superficially appears to be an element of "ID", isn't (or at least needn't be in practice).

350 posted on 08/25/2005 2:35:50 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: Dark Knight
Directed evolution is a euphemism for Intelligent Design.

No it isn't, but thanks for playing.

351 posted on 08/25/2005 2:37:50 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: Tim Long; Thatcherite; Vaquero
When you ever hear of the "Law of Evolution" get back to me.

When you ever learn the *actual* difference between theories and laws in science, get back to *us*.

Hint: Theories do not "graduate" to laws. They are two different kinds of description, and cover different regions of knowledge.

The following grossly oversimplifies things, but if it had to be reduced to a bumper-sticker sized description, it would be something like, "laws summarize *how* things behave, theories explain *why* they behave that way."

352 posted on 08/25/2005 3:00:47 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Dark Knight
As I have said before, species are ill defined.

Indeed, and being "ill-defined" is a direct consequence of evolutionary change. If life had been "designed", on the other hand, one would expect a lot clearer delineation between "products".

Yet speciation is asserted.

Because it does occur.

Extinctions are asserted as a mechanism,

One of the mechanisms, yes -- are you trying to imply that extinctions *don't* actually occur?

yet we know mergers exist and are ignored.

Don't be ridiculous -- they are not "ignored". Where did you get such a false impression?

I'd bet the genetic algorithms Junior mentioned used mergers and extinctions.

Do you have a point here?

NS has a lack of results.

This claim of yours is utterly false. Where did you "learn" it, a creationist pamphlet? You certainly couldn't have gotten it from reading the primary scientific literature, since there is no "lack of results" there.

It does not produce like other UNDERPINNING theories.

Again, I have to wonder where you acquired such a bizarrely tranparent false belief.

We're teaching our kids crappy science,

Well someone's been teaching *you* a crappy distortion of the actual science, that's for sure.

353 posted on 08/25/2005 3:07:10 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07; curiosity; spunkets
Surely you jest? Spunkets makes bigoted statements accusing everybody involved in ID of wanting to torutre and murder and curiosity calls him on it and you tell curiosity to "cease and desist"?

Perhaps it's something like my experience with my nephews. Back when they were much younger, my wife and I were "babysitting" our two nephews while their mother was away for the day. At one point they began squabbling, as brothers will do, and one came running to us to try to get us to settle their dispute. My wife just told them both to knock it off and find a way to get along, "or else". One of the nephews began to complain that this wasn't fair, and began to tell his side of the story, so I told him one of the facts of life: "Boys, when it comes to childhood squabbles, the feeling of most adults is that we really don't care who might be right or wrong on a trivial matter that will be forgotten tomorrow anyway, we just want to the noise to stop."

I get the impression that the moderator had a similar attitude tonight. As long as blood's not being spilled, he expects people to work it out between themselves, or else he'll send *everyone* to their rooms to restore the peace.

If that's the case, I can't say that I blame them. The moderators probably have their hands full all the time just handling articles posted from "do not post" sources, gross obscenities, disruptors, trolls, racism, spam, mentions of illegal activity or threats of violence, and other such "critical response" items. I doubt they have much time or energy left to play referee on run-of-the-mill online disagreements, or because someone is offended by someone else, even when the offense is justified.

354 posted on 08/25/2005 3:42:29 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: All

355 posted on 08/25/2005 3:45:58 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: weegee
If it is not a child, because it is forming in a woman's innards, and therefore a "part" of her, what is it when it forms in a test tube?

I was merely pointing out that what you claimed was an uncertainty in science was actually an issue of semantics, not ignorance regarding observations. I am not taking a position on this matter, because that's just asking for even more trouble.

You asked "Why are scientists so sure of the origins of life when they cannot even "determine" when life begins after a child is conceived?". I am simply pointing out that your question is founded upon a faulty premise.
356 posted on 08/25/2005 6:58:46 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Fine. Then given the statement, "If I observed X, I would conclude that ID is wrong," what would X be?


357 posted on 08/25/2005 6:59:26 AM PDT by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Diamond

That's because ID postulates two separate claims, one of which is not falsifiable and one of which is. It claims that there are biological structures that could not have evolved, and that is falsifiable. It also claims that there was an intelligent being that designed life. That is the claim that is not falsifiable.


358 posted on 08/25/2005 7:06:03 AM PDT by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: weegee

What about him?


359 posted on 08/25/2005 7:16:03 AM PDT by js1138 (Science has it all: the fun of being still, paying attention, writing down numbers...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
I get the impression that the moderator had a similar attitude tonight. As long as blood's not being spilled, he expects people to work it out between themselves, or else he'll send *everyone* to their rooms to restore the peace.

That's a new and enlightened attitude. The Mods used to take the Gary Larson "Lemmings on Vacation" approach.

For the unfortunates who don't know Larson, that approach would be, "Shut up or I'll drive this car off the next cliff."

360 posted on 08/25/2005 7:25:45 AM PDT by js1138 (Science has it all: the fun of being still, paying attention, writing down numbers...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380381-396 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson