NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello!

So yes. I recently heard about the Pastafarian phenomenon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghetti_Monster) that started as a criticism of Intelligent Design theory/hypothesis/speculation/faith. If I understand the strategy, proponents of this parody religion are trying to crush the ID movement by forcing joke creationist ideas like this one equal time with authentic religious ones.

Well, understand that I am saying this from the perspective of a religious person who does not believe Independent Design belongs in the science classroom:

Many critics of ID claim it is just an attempt to sneak Christian Creationism into the classrooms. Even if teachers and such describe only a vague assertion that SOME being or supernatural force created the universe, this can still be tacitly understood as the Judeo-Christian (read as: Christian) God.

"Intelligent Design (sometimes abbreviated ID) is the controversial assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection." states Wikipedia.

Okay. So is there a belief that teachers will suddenly start teaching Christian fundamentals if ID enters the classroom? Will the book of Genesis suddenly become a textbook? The whole thing behind ID, if I'm not mistaken, is the general statement that the universe is too complex to not have an initial creator. That's it. Little if any elaboration.

I mean, isn't there already enough complexity with Hindu, Muslim, and other creationist stories out there to fit in? Wouldn't this be sufficient to ensure that ID teaching remained vague on the details?

Therefore, I have concluded (perhaps in error) that Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is a critique on faith-based religion in general. It, however, has no tangible impact on the ID argument.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is indeed an attempt to make fun of the ID'ers, but in fact it is only a rather unimaginative clone of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_pink_unicorn), whose purpose is to make fun of all organized religions.

Many critics of ID claim it is just an attempt to sneak Christian Creationism into the classrooms. Even if teachers and such describe only a vague assertion that SOME being or supernatural force created the universe, this can still be tacitly understood as the Judeo-Christian (read as: Christian) God.

"Intelligent Design (sometimes abbreviated ID) is the controversial assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection." states Wikipedia.

Okay. So is there a belief that teachers will suddenly start teaching Christian fundamentals if ID enters the classroom? Will the book of Genesis suddenly become a textbook? The whole thing behind ID, if I'm not mistaken, is the general statement that the universe is too complex to not have an initial creator. That's it. Little if any elaboration.

Despite the frequency in which the opponents of ID indulge themselves in expressing the hyperbolic notion that suddenly science will disappear in all forms, the Dark Ages will return, all questions will be answered with "God did it and God is ethereal hippy with a white beard," Genesis will replace the entire school curriculum, individual thought will be squelched by a comeback of the inquisition, and so on and so forth if ID is granted the remotest semblance of consideration... it really isn't as bad as it is cracked up to be.

ID is little more then an alternate perspective of existence. Both perspectives (theistic and atheistic) of this particular argument have something very important in common; they both have a foundation of pure supposition.

The atheist is forced to suppose first that energy simple exists, then he must suppose that 'force' simply exists (the total of all universal constants that govern matter and energy, the Laws as we know them) and then he must suppose that force acted upon energy and that energy obeyed. He has to suppose these things because he exists and his existence relies on those suppositions.

On the other hand, the theist supposes that God simply exists for the exact same reasons as the atheist. The supposition made is that a power that is omnipotent, a consciousness that is omniscient, and a being that is omnipresent pre-existed Creation as we know it and enacted the Laws (force) which Creation (energy) must obey.

Neither gains a scrap of ground because at the end of the day we are both forced to make suppositions to explain our existence based solely on the fact that we exist. Of course, after that point things sort of branch out in completely different directions… on one hand the atheist chooses to place his faith in ‘chance’ and on the other hand the theist chooses to place his faith in ‘purpose’ but still… neither gains a scrap of ground, both require faith, and neither tends to matter at the end of the day because no matter who is right we still simply exist.

ID is nothing more then the offer of the other set of suppositions which invariable meets the same end... us and our existence as we know it.

The whole thing behind ID, if I'm not mistaken, is the general statement that the universe is too complex to not have an initial creator. That's it. Little if any elaboration.

well, that's the idea. keep their mouths shut and maybe it will pass constitutional muster. except that they keep slipping up.

for example, the textbook they push - 'of pandas and people'. we've seen earlier drafts of it, written before edwards v. aguillard. that's the case that finally declared teaching creationism in science class to be unconstitutional. anyway, what they did after that case was decided was to use the find/replace function of their word processing program to change the words god and creator and creationism with intelligent design(er). that's it.

and when you press any of the IDiots on it, they will say that it is the christian god who does the designing. and when you look at the people pushing for the inclusion of IDiotism in schools, they are exactly the same people pushing creationism - including the yec's that are so insane that not even 'answers in genesis' will have anything to do with them.

and when we looked into where the funding to push IDiotism into the science classes came from in, for example, the dover case, it turns out to be through donations at ye olde christian church.

and we have seen the goal of people at the discovery institute, as articulated in the wedge strategy (http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html), which is nothing more than putting creationism in a cheap suit in order to "overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies". you know, like science and feedom and progress.

Despite the frequency in which the opponents of ID indulge themselves in expressing the hyperbolic notion that suddenly science will disappear in all forms, the Dark Ages will return, all questions will be answered with "God did it and God is ethereal hippy with a white beard," Genesis will replace the entire school curriculum, individual thought will be squelched by a comeback of the inquisition, and so on and so forth if ID is granted the remotest semblance of consideration... it really isn't as bad as it is cracked up to be.

ID is little more then an alternate perspective of existence. Both perspectives (theistic and atheistic) of this particular argument have something very important in common; they both have a foundation of pure supposition.

The atheist is forced to suppose first that energy simple exists, then he must suppose that 'force' simply exists (the total of all universal constants that govern matter and energy, the Laws as we know them) and then he must suppose that force acted upon energy and that energy obeyed. He has to suppose these things because he exists and his existence relies on those suppositions.

On the other hand, the theist supposes that God simply exists for the exact same reasons as the atheist. The supposition made is that a power that is omnipotent, a consciousness that is omniscient, and a being that is omnipresent pre-existed Creation as we know it and enacted the Laws (force) which Creation (energy) must obey.

Neither gains a scrap of ground because at the end of the day we are both forced to make suppositions to explain our existence based solely on the fact that we exist. Of course, after that point things sort of branch out in completely different directions… on one hand the atheist chooses to place his faith in ‘chance’ and on the other hand the theist chooses to place his faith in ‘purpose’ but still… neither gains a scrap of ground, both require faith, and neither tends to matter at the end of the day because no matter who is right we still simply exist.

ID is nothing more then the offer of the other set of suppositions which invariable meets the same end... us and our existence as we know it.

I want to have your babies. :fluffle:

Sometimes I feel like I want ID to start being taught in science classrooms just to spite all the opponents. Then Good Revasser hovers over my shoulder and says, "Oh, no! The science classroom must be for teaching science only, not wolf-in-sheep's-clothing, Creationist psuedo-science!"
"Yeah," I think, "and that way all those silly Creationists will be pissed."
But if it does become included in the cirriculum... all those atheists will be pissed! Ahh, it's so hard to decide! But either way, someone will be pissed, so it's win-win for me.

I want to have your babies. :fluffle:



Sounds hot. When do we start? :D

ID is little more then an alternate perspective of existence.

no, it isn't. id sees itself as making empirical claims ('feature x could not possibly be explained by evolution', etc). or at least publicly claims to. if the IDiots were prepared to engage in science - which they claim they are - then their hypotheses have been falsified. this is not a matter of 'alternative perspective', this is a matter of using the law to declare that astrology is a scietific theory.

Sounds hot. When do we start? :D

Pick you up at 7. You should go pick up a few military uniforms, and maybe a Catholic priest's outfit.

Mmmmmm...Noodily appendages...mmmmmmm

I'm a walking dichotomy. Though I believe in God, and in the Christian belief regarding the creation of the world/universe, I also believe that Intelligent Design has no place in the classroom, either. If you want to teach your children I.D., do it at home or put the kid in a private school that does teach it, if you feel THAT strongly about it. The kid will lose in the long run by not getting all the education he needs to succeed in the world if the proponents of I.D. win. And I might not agree with the minutae of the curriculum anyway. That's why we have several religious denominations. We can't even agree within the Christian community how God should be worshipped. How the heck are we going to agree on how I.D. is to be taught?

Best to avoid it.

I'm a walking dichotomy. Though I believe in God, and in the Christian belief regarding the creation of the world/universe, I also believe that Intelligent Design has no place in the classroom, either. If you want to teach your children I.D., do it at home or put the kid in a private school that does teach it, if you feel THAT strongly about it. The kid will lose in the long run by not getting all the education he needs to succeed in the world if the proponents of I.D. win. And I might not agree with the minutae of the curriculum anyway. That's why we have several religious denominations. We can't even agree within the Christian community how God should be worshipped. How the heck are we going to agree on how I.D. is to be taught?

Best to avoid it.
There's no dichotomy there--you can believe in creation and recognize that it has no place in a science classroom. Personally, I have no problem with creation being taught in public schools, as long as it's part of a comparative religions course or a literature course, but it's not science, whether it's called creationism or ID. (I'm not arguing with you here, btw--just making a general statement.)

And your last statement in your first paragraph is also a good reason to keep church and state separate--you only benefit from a combination of the two if it's your church in charge of the state, after all.

I want to have your babies. :fluffle:

Sometimes I feel like I want ID to start being taught in science classrooms just to spite all the opponents. Then Good Revasser hovers over my shoulder and says, "Oh, no! The science classroom must be for teaching science only, not wolf-in-sheep's-clothing, Creationist psuedo-science!"
"Yeah," I think, "and that way all those silly Creationists will be pissed."
But if it does become included in the cirriculum... all those atheists will be pissed! Ahh, it's so hard to decide! But either way, someone will be pissed, so it's win-win for me.

Happily I live in England so there's no chance of any kind of 'Intelligent Design' making it into the classroom.

In England, just going to church at the weekend is seen as unusual, stating that you believe in Creationism would most likely result in people giving you funny looks, in fact even Christians would give you funny looks. The only mention of Creationism I can remember from school was a brief mention in biology of 'fundamentalists' who don't accept evolution.

Oh the joys of a secular state. :cool:

Oh the joys of a secular state. :cool:
Secular? Like how it is one of the few western countries to have an official state religion, with the Head of State being head of the church as well?

the Christian belief regarding the creation of the world/universe

which christian belief? that however science says things happened is good enough for us? or the modern heresy of biblical 'literalism'?

Secular? Like how it is one of the few western countries to have an official state religion, with the Head of State being head of the church as well?

Yeah but it's not like anyone actually listens to the Church of England.:)

Oh, and it's a common misconception that the Queen is the head of the church, she's the 'Defender of the Faith' but the Archbishop of Canturbury is the 'spiritual head' of the Church of England.

I'm a walking dichotomy. Though I believe in God, and in the Christian belief regarding the creation of the world/universe, I also believe that Intelligent Design has no place in the classroom, either. If you want to teach your children I.D., do it at home or put the kid in a private school that does teach it, if you feel THAT strongly about it. The kid will lose in the long run by not getting all the education he needs to succeed in the world if the proponents of I.D. win. And I might not agree with the minutae of the curriculum anyway. That's why we have several religious denominations. We can't even agree within the Christian community how God should be worshipped. How the heck are we going to agree on how I.D. is to be taught?

Best to avoid it.


Easy there, you're starting to make too much sense. Logic has no place in politics / gov't.

and when you press any of the IDiots on it, they will say that it is the christian god who does the designing. and when you look at the people pushing for the inclusion of IDiotism in schools, they are exactly the same people pushing creationism - including the yec's that are so insane that not even 'answers in genesis' will have anything to do with them.

They may believe that, but if they propose ID with the aforementioned strategy then they'll still come into problems if they suddenly shift it to a specifically Christian bent. Flying Spaghetti Monsterism can only force a more uniform version of ID, while other, more "legitimized" creationist belief systems can already do this.

Furthermore, Lazy Otakus has demonstrated how the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a cheap knockoff of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

I am afraid that just may be losing my faith in the 'giant spaghetti monster'...

ID is little more then an alternate perspective of existence. Both perspectives (theistic and atheistic) of this particular argument have something very important in common; they both have a foundation of pure supposition.

...which is exactly why neither of them can be taught in a science class. Science can be neither atheistic nor theistic precisely because any belief in the existence or non-existence of a deity is impossible to test.

Thus, we teach science and the theories that come out of it, which neither presuppose a God nor the non-existance of one, and we leave the theism vs. atheism arguments to philosophy and theology....

ID is nothing more then the offer of the other set of suppositions which invariable meets the same end... us and our existence as we know it.

You are setting up a false dichotomy, my friend. There is either atheism, theism, or "I don't know and I don't care." The latter is the position of science. The existence of any deity is neither presupposed nor denied.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit! ID is in fact a wolf in scientist's clothing! Don't pass it off as a scientific argument. To infer that there was a creator is to imply that there's a Big Guy in the Sky. Shuffle the cards and tapdance all you want, but it's painfully obvious that that's exactly what you're doing.

I'm a Buddhist, and my creation story agrees with science. In the beginning everything that ever was or will be was contained in an infinitely small singularity.
The stuff it was made of is referred to as Ylem. Thre was a "first cause" (this is an unknown reason in Buddhism) which caused an explosion of sorts, expanding the Ylem into the universe and creating what we see today. Sound familiar?
It should. It's also been called the Big Bang by scientists several thousand years after the Buddhists came up with the idea.
We Buddhists don't have to fight to get our ideas in the classroom, because they're already there. Perhaps it's just your religion that's fucked up and wrong, not the current scientific concensus.

Keep your Christian science out of the classroom until you can come up with scientific evidence of 6 day creation and a really big dude up there playing puppetmaster.

It should. It's also been called the Big Bang by scientists several thousand years after the Buddhists came up with the idea.
We Buddhists don't have to fight to get our ideas in the classroom, because they're already there.

Is Big Bang still taught? Isn't this just Creationism disguised as science?

Here's a solution. Instead of Creationism, instead of Intelligent Design:

SPONTANEOUS GENERATION

That's right. Spontaneous generation, new and improved! How did the world come into existence? It simply did, quite suddenly. Poof. You may believe a deity did it, or you may believe everything just "banged" together one day, or you may believe a gryphin fought with a bowl of eggdrop soup on a turtle's back. So there you go. ;)

Is Big Bang still taught? Isn't this just Creationism disguised as science?

Here's a solution. Instead of Creationism, instead of Intelligent Design:

SPONTANEOUS GENERATION

That's right. Spontaneous generation, new and improved! How did the world come into existence? It simply did, quite suddenly. Poof. You may believe a deity did it, or you may believe everything just "banged" together one day, or you may believe a gryphin fought with a bowl of eggdrop soup on a turtle's back. So there you go. ;)
Here's the difference. The Big Bang theory only describes the "how" of the subject--it doesn't describe what came before or where the material came from, or even if there was the possibility of some unseen creator who set it all in motion. All it deals with is observable data and implications from that data. It answers no philosophical questions, nor does it purport to. Creationism claims to answer the philosophical side while providing no substance for the how it happened. That difference is immense.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is indeed an attempt to make fun of the ID'ers, but in fact it is only a rather unimaginative clone of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_pink_unicorn), whose purpose is to make fun of all organized religions.
Someone already pointed that out, by I am going to repeat it anyway. Whatever you may make up about the Flying Spaghetti Monster was already done with the Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be her holy hooves) and done much better, thank you very much.