Creationists, ID and The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Though I believe in God, I agree with you on Intelligent Design. It's a philosophical theory, not a scientific one. (I wonder how many articles we're going to have about this...) But to be fair, I should clarify something for you.

Proponents of this theory (Flying Spagetti Monster) are actively approaching schools where Intelligent Design is taught to see if they can have their theories taught as well, after all who is to say that a flying spaghetti monster did not create all the universe.

Technically, this is redundant. Intelligent Design theory never mentions "God with a capital G." In other words, the theory itself never claims the Christian God is behind it. It says "an intelligent force," which would include the Flying Spagetti Monster. So approaching schools to see if their theory can be taught "as well" may work well as cute satire for people who don't know what ID is, but in reality they're just being repetitive and redundant as to the phrasing of the ID theory itself.

Avoiding Saying What Is Meant

Intelligent Design theory never mentions "God with a capital G."

Of course not. Avoiding directly saying what they mean is what this pseudo-theory is all about.

Pastafarianism is aimed at forcing (through the use of humor) confrontation with the real issues being hidden behind the code-phrase Intelligent Design. If the proponents of this attempt to force a particular theology into the classroom were amenable to logical arguments, then this whole mess would not have happened. If these people were responsive to arguments based on empirical research, then this whole mess would not have happened.

Acting "As If" Everything Were Equal

The proponents of forcing monotheism into the public school science curriculum act as if there were an equal weight of empirical evidence behind both the evolutionary theory and the God-theory of human origin. That is of course obvious non-sense. Believe in what you wish about the universe, but do not teach children your religious beliefs as fact or as equally probable with evolutionary theory.

Thou Shalt Not Lie

I have no problem with someone believing whatever they so choose, subject to the limit of where your fist meets my nose. I do have a problem with pretending a religious belief is actually science. This has been done knowingly in this case. Knowingly claiming that a falsehood is true is known as a lie. Claiming that "Intelligent Design" is not about religion seems to meet that definition:

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression

the scientific hypothesis conversely looks for data to prove their hypothesis false and then uses the information to build a better hypothesis.

In theory, at least. As a scientist, I have known many colleagues who do just the opposite - drawing attention to data that supports their hypothesis while conveniently ignoring data that refutes it (pretty much what proponents of ID do). I'm not saying this to imply that we should paint scientists with the same brush as those pushing ID, just that we should avoid over-glorifying science.

Science, actually, if very much like most faiths. In theory, it's a wonderful thing. But not all practitioners adhere to its tenets as thoroughly as they should.

Scientists are just as likely to have their own agenda as anyone else.

I disagree with the statistics showing that the number of pirates is in decline. I think if you sail a yacht (or oil tanker, or cruise ship) off the coast of Africa, you'll find piracy quite alive-and-well. There may be a decline in the number of Caribbean pirates, but that's speculative.

Great article!

In this vain

The correct spelling is "vein," if you'd like to fix it and delete this comment.

God on a whim created the deeply flawed human race about 6000 years ago, the pinnacle of His creative genius.

I have an especially difficult time believing the we (no offense, everyone) are the best that an all-powerful, all-knowing God could create.

@yar
So the fact that the three religions you have listed have stood the test of time make them more valid then new religions? Just seeing if that is what you are saying or not.

As a Christian, I believe in Intelligent Design, but it does not have a place in a public classroom. As many of you correctly stated above, Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. However, I do have a bit of a problem when evolution isn't taught as a scientific theory, but that's more of an individual's integrity issue rather then a political issue.

Matthew and Michael, I think that a lot of your criticisms of the teaching of evolution would be alleviated if science teachers did a better job teaching the scientific method in the first place. Then students would understand how scientists use experiments to figure out how things work, how after enough experimentation they can sometimes arrive at a theory, and how some theories stand the test of time while others are disproved. They would also learn that every theory has the potential to be proved false, but that the probability that it is true increases as more supporting evidence comes to light. Science is all about probability.

Evolution has stood the test of time remarkably well. The fossil record now contains a number of specimens that link birds to reptiles, humans to apes, and now fish to land animals. Evidence is mounting all the time that life on this planet can be traced back to a common ancestor. This is the best scientific explanation we currently have connecting the life forms of today with the fossils we have found. It's always possible that we could find some conflicting information, but the probability of the common ancestor is extremely high.

If I were a science teacher, this is what I would teach my students.

Ramen, brother, ramen. I'm glad to see that there are even people on the Vine that have been touched by His noodly appendage.

Sorry, but I have to throw this out there - Terry Pratchett's definition of the Big Bang theory:

"In the beginning, there was nothing. Which exploded."

I disagree with the statistics showing that the number of pirates is in decline. I think if you sail a yacht (or oil tanker, or cruise ship) off the coast of Africa, you'll find piracy quite alive-and-well. There may be a decline in the number of Caribbean pirates, but that's speculative.

??

According to Christian doctrine, our specialness in God's eyes comes from our free will, an innate ability and desire to "know" that other beings (including angels) lack. An all-powerful God could easily create people who perform perfectly, who do perfectly, who are always strong and always fast and always smart.

I should have clarified a little. I agree with you on the topic of free will, however free will is not related to biology. What I meant to say was that biologically speaking, we could be much more advanced than we are now, while still retaining free will. Perhaps one day we'll evolve into angels who have free will.

And on a completely unrelated note, of angels don't possess free will how did Lucifer rebel against God?

OK we need to modify The Flying Spaghetti Monster thing to the Stupid Unintelligent Flying Spaghetti Monster thing. That should get rid of the 'straw man' problem and the 'issues' in respect of this. All hail the Stupid Unintelligent Flying Spaghetti Monster !!

yar writes:
ID exists for one reason. In a campaign of the past 40 years, there has been attempts to remove religious teaching and objects from public areas. With little or no teaching of it in schools, ID is an attempt to at least acknowledge a higher power.

That's certainly the most honest explanation I've heard from a proponent of ID. Good on you, yar. If your ID proponent peers could be as honest about it, a real discussion could take place about whether religion should be taught in schools, rather than some smokescreen about science and theories.

I was in school 50 years ago and religion was taught a few hours a year, not bible classes but a general overview of Christianity and mention of Judaism, one or two others.

I think that last part is one of the reasons people are trying to keep religion out of public schools. If religion is to be taught in a public school, then deference needs to be given to all of them, not just the one that the majority of the citizens belong to. The best arena for this would most likely be a World History course. I went to a Catholic high school for my first two years, and in my World History course we touched (albeit briefly) on Shintoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Daoism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and various sects within Christianity. This is the goal of Separation of Church and State, to keep one religion from becoming "the" religion of the government. The government can at any time support any religion, it just has to support all others as well.