OPEN LETTER TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD
I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.
Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.
It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.
Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.
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 enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.
You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.
In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.
Sincerely Yours,
Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.
P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.
http://www.venganza.org/
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage"Intelligent Design" is creationism with a different name. Their strategy is to sneak creationism into public schools through the back door by not mentioning "god". They say the evidence indicates that the universe had a designer, although they will not go so far as to name who that designer might be (but between us, we both know its the christian god *nudge nudge wink wink*).
What is the basic premise of intelligent design? I confess I am ignorant.
Like creationism, intelligent design is a stinking heap of garbage that only an intellectually stunted neanderthal would give a second glance.
Originally posted by rwingettonly an intellectually stunted neanderthal would give a second glance
"Intelligent Design" is creationism with a different name. Their strategy is to sneak cretionism into public schools through the back door by not mentioning "god". They say the evidence indicates that the universe had a designer, although they will not go so far as to name who that designer might be (but between us, we both know its the christian god *n ...[text shortened]... king heap of garbage that only an intellectually stunted neanderthal would give a second glance.
What happened to all the tolerance being preached here?
For a biased answer that leans in the other direction try the Discovey Institute or similar society.
Originally posted by HalitoseNo. There are many different beliefs that are worthy of respect. But creationism is not one of them. As we move further into the 21st century it is incomprehensible that there are still people babbling on like the village idiot about something as indefensible as creationism. You'd think we were still in the dark ages. I will not give any respect to flat earth theorists or to the Ku Klux Klan, for example. Nor will I give any respect to something as idiotic as creationism. They deserve nothing but scorn, contempt and derision.
[b]They should be publicly spat upon.
Why? Because their beliefs are different to yours?[/b]
Originally posted by rwingettOne of the more despicable aspects of creationists is this:
No. There are many different beliefs that are worthy of respect. But creationism is not one of them. As we move further into the 21st century it is incomprehensible that there are still people babbling on like the village idiot about something as indefensible as creationism. You'd think we were still in the dark ages. I will not give any respect to flat ...[text shortened]... t to something as idiotic as creationism. They deserve nothing but scorn, contempt and derision.
They could care less about actual science, but try to disguise their
so-called theory as if it were a scientifically correct alternative theory.
If it were a real theory there would be peer critiques, evidence
evaluated and so forth. Creationists will have none of that, saying
because scientists are against them any debate will be biased in such
a way as to tarnish the so-called image of creationism.
Of course they don't want real debate where a body of evidence is
tried on its own merits, half of those people firmly believe the earth
is only 8,000 years old. I knew one of them and tried to argue
logically with him about this issue and I might as well have hit my
head up against a wall. Actual scientific peer reviewed debate is the
last thing these idiots want. They are using science as a scam, no
more. If they win out, they would drop the "science" front in a
heartbeat and go back to bible thumping.
Originally posted by sonhouseCreationists will have none of that, saying because scientists are against them any debate will be biased in such a way as to tarnish the so-called image of creationism.
One of the more despicable aspects of creationists is this:
They could care less about actual science, but try to disguise their
so-called theory as if it were a scientifically correct alternative theory.
If it were a real theory there would be peer critiques, evidence
evaluated and so forth. Creationists will have none of that, saying
because scienti ...[text shortened]... y win out, they would drop the "science" front in a
heartbeat and go back to bible thumping.
I think the few comment in just this very short thread are a very good example of this. If you are already labeled as medieval, closed minded %$#%$ theres really no point in trying to have a civil discussion.
Originally posted by HalitoseA religious group is trying to push a literal interpretation of a religious text as science.
[b]Creationists will have none of that, saying because scientists are against them any debate will be biased in such a way as to tarnish the so-called image of creationism.
I think the few comment in just this very short thread are a very good example of this. If you are already labeled as medieval, closed minded %$#%$ theres really no point in trying to have a civil discussion.[/b]
Does it sound medieval?
Originally posted by HalitoseNo, there isn't. There can be no civilized discussion with creationists. Debating with riffraff of that nature is absolutely pointless. So let's cut straight to the mud slinging, shall we? If you are a creationist, Halitose, then you are a complete idiot.
[b]Creationists will have none of that, saying because scientists are against them any debate will be biased in such a way as to tarnish the so-called image of creationism.
I think the few comment in just this very short thread are a very good example of this. If you are already labeled as medieval, closed minded %$#%$ theres really no point in trying to have a civil discussion.[/b]
When you're ready to pull your head out of your nether regions and leave the dark ages behind, then we can have a debate. But as long as you're going to babble on incoherantly about creationism you'll get nothing but insults.