Digg

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

Flying spaghetti monster defeats anti-evolution FL school

dailykos.com — Efforts were afoot recently on the Polk County School Board to begin teaching the "concept" of intelligent design in science classes as an alternative to evolution. But that was before the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster arrived and shamed the school board into backing down. Read more about this somewhat merry holiday tale...

Bury

MrBabyMan 328 days ago, made popular 327 days ago

4225 diggs
digg it

668 Comments
Who Dugg It?

fluidfoundation, on 12/26/2007, -16/+707RAmen.
- trickyt, on 12/26/2007, -8/+183Bless the day his noodley appendage touches these pagan school board members.
  - LeeSoong, on 12/26/2007, -21/+5Quick !
    
    Dispatch the pirate ship Pastafarian missionaries to Florida!
    
    The only good thing about Intelligent Design is it completely eliminates Christianity and disproves Jesus existence, because an intelligent design does not need saving,
    it was correct the first time...
    
    If they teach I.D. - they must ask all the Christian children to leave the school,
    until they abandon unintelligent belief systems.
    
    I.D. is Deified Naturalism, and has no place for a Yaweh or a Jesus.
    - amailian, on 12/26/2007, -32/+5how does it disprove Jesus' existence? beyond that, how does intelligent design cause people to not need a savior?
      God created man with free will, and with that the ability to choose sin over God. When man chose to sin, and separate himself from God (and he did choose it, it wasn't forced upon him), he became imperfect, and passed that imperfection down to his children, and their children, and so on. It's called original sin.
      
      As far as Intelligent Design goes, Intelligent Design does not in and of itself specifically point to Christianity. All it says is that the universe had an un-causable cause greater than the universe, something that exists outside our space and time. Yes, it does apply to Christianity, as Christianity states that God (the un-causable cause that exists outside our space and time) created the universe (the effect). However, Intelligent Design can also apply to other religions as well-(to my knowledge) most, if not a considerable amount.
      
      The theory of Intelligent Design (and yes, I will admit it is a theory as it has not been proven, though has supporting evidence-which I will not provide here, look it up) does not belong to any specific religion as much as it is a very plausible alternative, and on occasion a proponent of, the theory of evolution.
      
      (please forgive me for spelling and grammar errors)
      - Spuy767, on 12/26/2007, -6/+13That's ok, I really don't expect that good of spelling from anyone who spouts religious banter. On a side-note, what is "verocity?" Is it a misspelling of ferocity or voracity, or is it a hybrid of the two meant to show an even stronger resolve?
      - amailian, on 12/26/2007, -14/+5@Spuy767-
        Firstly, when did I use "verocity"? Not once did I use this word.
        Secondly, why do you go straight to insults, instead of responding with something to add to the conversation (and yes, I view this as a conversation)? There are many very intelligent people who are believers in a God of some sort, a creator. To say that anything that comes out from them is void just because they have a religious background is idiotic.
      - nanajeebus, on 12/27/2007, -2/+19Believe in God if you want. Believe in absolutely anything you want, just please don't call it science.
        Intelligent design is in no way an alternative or proponent to the theory of evolution. Intelligent Design makes on simple claim: God/Some Higher Power did it. It does absolutely nothing beyond that. It offers no predictions and cannot be considered science as it is not falsifiable.
      - TenebrousX, on 12/27/2007, -1/+25I'll forgive the spelling and grammar errors, but I can't forgive the blatant scientific errors. Creationism is NOT a theory - it offers no explanation for the variety of life, and puts forth no testable predictions. It's nothing more than a hypothesis, if even, that conflicts with mountains of evidence in favor of the origin of species by evolution through natural selection.
      - yakski, on 12/27/2007, -2/+18I have always loved that MORONIC concept of genetic guilt/genetic sin that many so called Christians believe. It is obviously ridiculous that God would want to make everyone guilty of "Original Sin" which they somehow got because it was genetically passed from their parents... how absurd.. guilt by genetic heredity. Get some brains.... think about how plain evil that entire concept is... If you follow this idea to its logical conclusion then you justify genocide just like Hitler did.
      - AhronZombi, on 12/27/2007, -3/+6I disagree. Believing in god is the exact opposite of logical thinking. and why would you call illogical thinkers intelligent ever?
      - Spuy767, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2FTA - "Polk school board members were clearly caught off-guard by the speed and verocity of the response to their public support for ID/creationism in the classroom, and they quickly backed off any efforts to teach intelligent design."
    - SysstemLord, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1So you're suggesting we should fix a mistake and replace it with another one?
  - seventoes, on 12/27/2007, -0/+13May the sauce be with you.
    - Spuy767, on 12/27/2007, -0/+8The sauce will be with you, always.
    - Waterrat, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1 May the open sauce be with you..
      And an extra side of noodles.
      So glad these stupid hicks were put in their place.
- 5urr3al5am, on 12/26/2007, -74/+5The sad thing is that you can tell by reading this article that no one has a clue what intelligent design actually is.
  - Xerces, on 12/26/2007, -17/+4you obviously have no clue of what believing in this godly godly god entails
  - zeitgueist, on 12/26/2007, -5/+67No, they understand exactly what it is. However I can be pretty sure you don't understand evolution, if you believe in ID. I'd actually bet I know more about ID than you do. ID purely a criticism of evolution using old, outdated information, and misunderstandings of basic science. It says that evolution is wrong, and some "designer" is responsible. The designer is almost never aliens or magic, or the like, but almost always is a deity. ID offers no positive evidence: It has not content.
    - 5urr3al5am, on 12/26/2007, -61/+3that in a nutshell is completely wrong ... you strike out 3 times.. the inning is over... I don't understand how you could be so off the mark on something so simple?
      - zeitgueist, on 12/26/2007, -1/+42Please educate me, instead of criticizing......though that in and of itself is kind of a microcosm of the problem. I do however sympathize with your confusion on evolution. It's very complex.
      - zeitgueist, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1Shockingly, you never did respond to this.
    - 5urr3al5am, on 12/26/2007, -50/+3Theory of evolution basically states that you start with a few cells (really almost nothing) and after billions and billions of years, you end up with a human. So in theory you start with something with almost no complexity and move to something with the most extreme complexity that history has ever known. Yes, even more complex than the most intentionally designed computer chip on the market today. This is no small feet. You can not glance over that lightly. This is contrary to how the universe 'runs', it runs in a random fashion, it is a proven fact that things that time x randomness equals more randomness, not organization of any kind. When looking at the starting organism there would be a certain set of DNA, in contrast to the 'result', which would be a completely different-much richer set of DNA that makes up for all of the traits of the human. Every step of the way over the entire span of time there were many many points where the fate of human kind would be determined. Its at these steps information was added to make the DNA more complex than its predecessor, and its at these points because the theory of evolution runs contrary to all the rest of the universe that we say that there was a designer involved. This is why Intelligent Design and Evolution are completely compatible (and why are proven to be ignorant).
      - trogdoor, on 12/26/2007, -1/+23Intelligent design and "Evolution" are technically compatible, but the theory of evolution through natural selection ( what most people are referring to when they say "evolution" ) is not compatible with ED. Also, though you don't mention it by name, you seem to be referring to the second law of thermodynamics, which relates to Entropy, and I consider it a failure of our education systems that entropy is considered by by far to many people ( told by their teachers none the less ) "randomness", it is not randomness at all, and it "randomness" is a horribly inaccurate simplification.
        
        "In physics, entropy, symbolized by S, is a measure of the unavailability of a system’s energy to do work." Is an accurate ( though not absolutely complete ) definition.
      - Stroggoth, on 12/26/2007, -1/+28Just to throw a monkey-wrench in your gears: I was part of a large project that involved simulating creatures and genetic mutations to those creatures by computer. After about 90 billion interations of mutation, the creatures evolved intelligent behaviors and strategies purely by natural selection. This is to me PROOF that evolution produces complex behaviors, I need have no faith when my own system produced something complex from elementary components. I know it works, and I was not the intelligent designer of any of them.
      - Darkhacker, on 12/26/2007, -2/+28"This is contrary to how the universe 'runs', it runs in a random fashion"
        
        fail.
      - 5urr3al5am, on 12/26/2007, -14/+1Stroggoth: How was it decided what outside forces effected that sample group and when?
      - BOFH2, on 12/27/2007, -8/+2stroggoth: how far are the models off? for example the climate change models are 1 to 300% off.
      - jjb123, on 12/27/2007, -1/+55urr3al5am: No one argued it wasn't random. The point is just over a very long time cells mutate and become more complex. What results from this is due to random processes. One of these random processes led to humans.
        
        Also, comment system sucks, sorry I couldn't reply directly.
      - kayala, on 12/27/2007, -1/+5Evolution is not the same as abiogenesis. Just putting that out there.
      - jparkinson, on 12/27/2007, -1/+5Epic Fail
      - ozydingo, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1stroggoth: I'd love to read some publications on such a project. Anything available?
    - ozydingo, on 12/26/2007, -1/+24@ 5urr3al5am
      Feat, not feet.
      
      "You can not glance over that lightly."
      You, sir, are the only one I see glancing over that, in an attempt to make it sound more incredible than it is. Noone else argues "see, you have a couple of cells, then you have a billion years, then hey presto, a human! Now that's what I call science!"
      
      "This is contrary to how the universe 'runs', it runs in a random fashion, it is a proven fact that things that time x randomness equals more randomness, not organization of any kind."
      Once again the fallacy that evolution is a purely random process. It is not. The mutations are random. Their survival is not. Drive a resonant system with noise and you get order in the output. It is not contrary to the universe to believe that a beneficial random mutation will propagate, a detrimental random mutation will not, and the end result over extended time is a continuing cascade of surviving beneficial mutations. Intricate complexity, coming from initial simplicity.
      - ozydingo, on 12/27/2007, -0/+3"At some point you have to begin reversing the law that states entropy rules"
        
        No, no, you really don't. I have yet to see a convincing argument of why that is so.
        
        Is it just me, or is anti-evolutionist argument just a bandwagon of fad arguments that haven't yet been so publically ridiculed as to prompt moving onto the next one? Every few months the focus of anti-evolutionist argument shifts to something completely new, and every argument you see is just a regurgitation of the same current theme? Think for your goddamned self, people.
    - 5urr3al5am, on 12/26/2007, -14/+1(feat,... yes a typo. .I'm glad you're paying attention)
      It's also a belief that would see the hand in these scenarios with these exact conditions that happen thousands, maybe millions, of times over and over during that time span to allow for the gentle filtering of only the weak, but not all of those organisms.
      - Dylan16807, on 12/27/2007, -2/+1But most of the strong ones do die early, just at a slightly lower rate on average. No hand there, just the randomness of everyday life.
      - jparkinson, on 12/27/2007, -1/+5You do realize there is a difference between a typo and a spelling mistake... the a and e keys aren't close enough to make that kind of typo while typing feat.
        
        Just admit that you made the spelling mistake, and that you're getting completely owned in this argument because you're arguing with people who actually know what they're talking about.
      - 5urr3al5am, on 12/27/2007, -2/+1dylan-yes, you didnt really answer the question... can you explain why it is that some are always left? why didn't any of these outside forces over the billions and billions of years wipe out this experiment and force it to start it back to nothing?
        jparkinson - your an ass that adds zero to a discussion - good for you
      - ozydingo, on 12/27/2007, -1/+6"You're" is the word you're looking for, and that can be no typo.
        
        Why do you expect "these [..] forces" to wipe out the experiment? Even those organisms not as well-suited to the environment can survive, just not as well. Small long-term pressure creates gradual change when a little bit of random variation is introduced. What's so hard to grasp here?
  - 5urr3al5am, on 12/27/2007, -13/+1Its interesting that when you read all of these comments they dance around the fact, but keep coming back to the question that was made earlier. What is controlling the outside conditions that ultimately shape the destiny of human-kind? That in short is the question Intelligent Design asks. Why does simply asking that question intimidate so many scientists?
    - cranium, on 12/27/2007, -1/+13-What is controlling-, -Why does simply asking that question intimidate-
      Your conclusions are implied by your assumptions you bury into your questions.
      You should try *reason* some time, you'd like it!
      - 5urr3al5am, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1LivingHealthy: enlighten us all
      - Scienceisfun, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2It frustrates me that some people think that because the entropy of the universe is constantly increasing, the entropy of subsections of the universe must also be constantly increasing.
      - Fordi, on 12/29/2007, -0/+1@LivingHealthy:
        The law of entropy applies to closed systems, which the earth is not; it has continuous solar energy input.
        
        Sheesh. STAT and now PHYS. Did you pass anything in college?
      - Fordi, on 12/30/2007, -0/+1Hm. Just hours after I mentioned to LivingHealthy that I'd be following his stupid ass around and correcting his bad info, his account disappears entirely. Note to self: The way to rid yourself of trolls is to troll them specifically.
        
        Hey, any other rationalist around: take note, this is useful information!
    - aurorion, on 12/27/2007, -2/+1Of course, the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
      - 5urr3al5am, on 12/27/2007, -5/+1says the 3rd grader
  - trickyt, on 12/27/2007, -3/+13"no one has a clue what intelligent design actually is"
    Let's hope it stays that way.
    - 5urr3al5am, on 12/27/2007, -14/+2ignorance truly is bliss
      - Fordi, on 12/29/2007, -0/+1@LivingHealthy:
        Do some calculations on how many permutations it would take to come up with ONE protein.
        Given a snippet length of N, and known base 4, and given that for a length of N, approximately sqrt(N) permutations in N generate feasible proteins, and using a genetic algorithm, it would require, on average, log4(4^sqrt(N)) generations.
        
        Oh, by the way. Knowing your genetic algorithms is a good thing, and is presently taught in STAT class. Maybe you should revisit college.
    - infinitiesedge, on 12/27/2007, -3/+1Come on... Don't digg him down. That /had/ to be a joke.
      
      (5urr3al5am's post)
  - hmunkey, on 12/27/2007, -2/+9Yeah, because it makes no damn sense!
    - 5urr3al5am, on 12/27/2007, -5/+1to the liberal/atheist digg crowd reading a stop sign doesn't make sense
      - ozydingo, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1Ooh, well said, my man!
- prleet, on 12/26/2007, -7/+1Da best, damn that was the first thing in my head.
- popothebright, on 12/27/2007, -12/+6I've always believed that the supreme being was a Magic 8 Ball. Personally I vote for that being taught in school as well.
  
  http://www.ifate.com/fateball.html
- mm911, on 12/27/2007, -3/+19I, for one, welcome our new noodly appendaged overlords.
- Andysan, on 12/27/2007, -5/+7How about teaching the we-don't have-a-clue-how-evolution-got-started design? Then get on with teaching the known science of evolution. That would be the intelligent design of a science course that everyone could live with. Maybe! That would also free up people to go with everything from bearded guys in the sky to lightning hitting a mud puddle if they desperately need a starting event.
  - reddikilowatt, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1That's sounds great to you and me, but the problem is that Genesis (the book of the Bible, not the band*) doesn't specifically say that God created the protoplasm and it became DNA. These people (unfortunately, my aunt is one of them), believe that the text should be read verbatim, even the parts that conflict with the other parts, and that it really is "THE WORD OF GOD." To question TWOD is to be a blasphemer, even if it is just for a clarification.
    
    *Which may not be a bad idea... using Genesis (the band) as a way to explain evolution.
    - Andysan, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1You are so right. People have to understand that religion is a construction of the mind while evolution is a construction of scientific fact. Once (If) they accept that, they may be able to position their religion where is doesn't conflict with science but still provides all the benefits of a religion.
- jamie06260, on 12/27/2007, -1/+14It is a beautiful day to be a Pastafarian.
- bryceman111, on 12/27/2007, -12/+1Wow, you guys are *****' gay. Grow up. Don't use the same type of argument an 8 year old could come up with.
  
  Ravioli is for adults...
  - m0tbaillie, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1And calling someone "gay" isn't the same type of childish slander a child would use? Right...
    
    The point of the flying spaghetti monster is that because it is SO absurd, yet so simple in the analogy that it supports, it can seem so ridiculous, yet make so much more sense than ID.
- InvaderProtos, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2Brilliantly said, fluidfoundation.
- parkermauney, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1No pictures?
  tl;dr
- Jpotts12, on 12/27/2007, -1/+4Am I the only one who finds it ironic that it's called "intelligent" design?
  - Waterrat, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1 Not at all,...Those who believe in it are so obviously NOT the brightest crayons in the box.
- mllawso, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Huh, It would appear you have 666 diggs.
strafefire, on 12/26/2007, -21/+68This story is so funny, that it needs to get to the front page!
- SQLserver, on 12/26/2007, -5/+38it just did!
  
  Thank you o Great Flying Spaghetti Monster!
  - ProducedRaw, on 12/26/2007, -8/+9RAmen.
- MrHappy123, on 12/27/2007, -15/+2I believe in the Cursing Evolution Monster.. do they have one of those yet? I would love to see a artic literation of this.
  
  PS, if youcant even consider the possibility of intelligient design(yes, evolution can be fitted in there) then you are a fool undoubtly.
  - Fordi, on 12/27/2007, -0/+9You are correct. Intelligent Design is, essentially, a genericised form of all creationist hypothetical constructs. To fail to consider them is folly, as they are old and past-accepted concepts.
    
    What it enables us to do is to lump together all fundamentalist creation hypotheses, consider, and dismiss them simultaneously. It's a great macro for creating atheism via logical thought, because it boils down the theistic answer to 'where did we come from?' from a set of similar but ideologically opposed answers to a single answer which represents the key points of the set.
    
    Once the answer is simplified, it becomes simple to disprove it on the basis of infinite recursion without statistical justification (you have a hypothetical designer without known origin, but no statistical justification for the designer hypothesis, which would be required to posit him).
    
    ID'ers consider he statistical justification to exist, but pretty much fail on stat analysis; given that a chemical system that can self replicate can be naturally generated in conditions found on earth, the genetic 'black-box' nature of self-replicating systems, and the energy levels found in the places it is guessed that life began, it is no large leap of faith to make the connection that small changes over a long period of time represent large changes, or that widespread insignificant variation in a population between periods of separation and partial extinction results in significant variation. Conceptually speaking, as you understand more about the interaction of systems, it becomes as simple as 1 + 1 = 2.
    
    On a side note: You may find scientists who are religious - but you'll rarely find a religious scientist that has the intellectual dishonesty to include his faith in his work. A good scientist has divorced his work from his personal opinions and beliefs, and allows the evidence to speak for itself.
- Tiak, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2Hmm, ths story stayed up, but it seems venganza.org (The FSM site) is down... This I think we can blame the media for.
- S1ngular1ty1, on 12/27/2007, -0/+5FTA: "But more than that, civic and business leaders appear to be fed up with the ID movement, as it were, and now realize that their communities will be branded as backward and ignorant if their local school boards push the teaching of ID and oppose the teaching of evolution."
  
  Finally, they understand!!!
bigdirtymoose, on 12/26/2007, -18/+282Brother and Sisters, I want to testify that I have been touched by the Noodly Appendage and have been saved by the Grace of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Hallelujah!
- TehDoctor, on 12/26/2007, -6/+42rAmen, my brother. May His Noodly Appendage bless all of us in time, including these heathen schoolboard members. They can yet be saved.
- VAXcat, on 12/26/2007, -17/+57 It really pisses me off when you punks parade this tired old made up silly story about a divine being called the "Flying SPaghetti Monster", and try to sway young people from belief in the real Supreme Being. I hope you all burn in hell for the damage you do to young people's souls, who would otherwise follow the path of true Righteousness by worshipping the one true deity - yes, that's right, I'm talking about the Invisible Pink Unicorn...next to her Divine Pinkness, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is just some sort of ridiculous made up Atheist joke!
  - Aupajo, on 12/26/2007, -1/+29FSM will flay the IPU with his mighty noodle-lashings of wrath!
  - C0MF0RTABLYnumb, on 12/27/2007, -0/+17Thanks for the love, God would be proud.
    - Waterrat, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2Who?
  - Nichiren, on 12/27/2007, -2/+9/Sarcasm
    
    Fixed
  - freehunter, on 12/27/2007, -8/+1Sarcasm is supposed to be funny
    - SysstemLord, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1I knew you would figure that out
  - Makaveli604, on 12/27/2007, -3/+12IPU > FSM
    
    The fact he is dugg down shows how much digg sucks. No one read past "sway young people from belief in the real Supreme Being".
    - carpespasm, on 12/27/2007, -0/+9or maybe digg just has more FSMers than IPUers
  - tim04, on 12/27/2007, -2/+3Invisible Pink Unicorn > All.
    
    As a bonus, you can ride him/her/it/Supreme Being
  - orangemarmalade, on 12/27/2007, -0/+3How do you know it's pink?
    - cranium, on 12/27/2007, -0/+4Post your proof that it's not pink. Don't have any? I thought so. See, it's pink.
  - Metis2be, on 12/27/2007, -0/+8Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of awesome mystical power. We know this because they manage to be invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.
    - Waterrat, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1 And I know it's true cause the unicorn bible tells me so...
      Don't cha love circular logic?
  - MrPeach, on 12/29/2007, -0/+0AH! AH! I'm burning in hell!
    Oops, I was wrong, it was just Pizza cooking my upper palette.
- Pritchard, on 12/27/2007, -0/+11Halelasagna!
- dhughes, on 12/27/2007, -1/+14 Just as long as He doesn't touch *your* noodly appendage you'll be OK, unlike some religions.
- badassninja, on 12/27/2007, -10/+1Atheists are assholes.
  - quiznos, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2jeez, everyone's forgetting their /sarcasm tag today
  - cranium, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2The people trying to short-circuit the whole scientific process in order to illegally shoe-horn their religion into the science textbooks are assholes.
thebadkitty, on 12/26/2007, -24/+100Nancy Bostock: bostockn@pcsb.org
Peggy O’Shea: osheap@pcsb.org
Jane Gallucci: galluccij@pcsb.org
Carol Cook: cookc@pcsb.org

Every little email helps!
- se1zure, on 12/26/2007, -105/+7How old are you? 5?
  Because that is one of the most immature things you could do.
  - JenadaeXX, on 12/26/2007, -8/+68How old are you? 50?
    Because this is what the internet was made for. Other then porn of course...
  - scoot2006, on 12/26/2007, -2/+81public servants get public emails
    - pauldy, on 12/26/2007, -32/+2Generally from the people whom they are meant to serve not some random internet user it just creates a smoke cloud preventing them from getting more work done and wasting more tax dollars. But I guess unemployed people don't think like that.
      - LeeSoong, on 12/26/2007, -2/+15Stop bringing the legalization of marijuana into this!
        
        Smoke cloud, indeed!
      - sinrtb, on 12/27/2007, -0/+4The beauty is that
        A) I don't like the job they are doing (ID/Creationism belongs in theology not science)
        B) I want it to be known that this backwards mentality needs to stop especially in our school systems
        C) I don't pay taxes in Florida so all this cost me is time
  - 5urr3al5am, on 12/26/2007, -59/+6yeah I have to agree with Se1zure.. that was in terribly bad taste and very immature
    - natastna2, on 12/26/2007, -23/+2Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetard.
    - gl77, on 03/31/2008, -2/+16O RLY?
    - pintomp3, on 12/26/2007, -1/+22home phone numbers would be in bad taste and crossing the line, work emails and phones numbers are perfectly legitimate.
  - EvilDr.X, on 12/26/2007, -4/+58Those addresses are listed in the damn article. Calm down.
- SQLserver, on 12/26/2007, -9/+21dude- thanks, you did the right thing, and you are right.
  Every Email will help...
  Every battle we win against insane religious fanatics is a victory.
  If it goes in Florida, it could spread throughout the US in no time.
  What would come next?
  - karmakanic, on 12/26/2007, -2/+23A President?
  - itux1985, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Nothing is changing down here I can assure you. Rednecks will be rednecks and church goers church goers. Its not even big news. I live in Clearwater (Tampa). This is the first I have heard it. I can only hope that a President does NOT come from this state.
- johnnick, on 12/26/2007, -1/+17Providing the emails addresses isn't bad, although the members of the school board should pay the most attention to those from their constituents. Unfortunately, what this will unleash is a flood of emails to each of these people that are filled with the type of bile and venom that is typical of so many of these comments. If the emails were well written, polite and factual they would carry a lot more weight. I know it won't happen, but I can dream.
  - brentinkc, on 12/26/2007, -1/+10I always just send them the Open Letter, with a few slight edits.
- fishbert, on 12/27/2007, -1/+4The article describes events relating to the Polk County School Board.
  The email addresses you provided (from the end of the article) are for the Pinellas County School Board.
  
  You should really make this distinction clear when calling for action from the masses.
- contradictator, on 12/27/2007, -0/+6Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!
- ghobad, on 12/27/2007, -2/+2Why stop there, you should include the Governor and Attorney General as well
  Charlie.Crist@MyFlorida.com
  ag.mccollum@myfloridalegal.com
89992, on 12/26/2007, -12/+140Polk county just so happens to have the highest concentration of trailer parks in all of FL. Go figure.
- LeeSoong, on 12/26/2007, -3/+19
  They Be Tryin' to Keep the White Man Down!
  
  Mr. Wizard, save our science!
- endersadvocate, on 12/26/2007, -1/+24As a current student of the Polk County School System.
  
  I approve this message.
  - brentinkc, on 12/26/2007, -1/+18Are they teaching creationism in English classes now, too?
    - endersadvocate, on 12/26/2007, -2/+17in my pre ap class each person read a part of the bible.
- osbjmg, on 12/26/2007, -2/+4source source source?
- diggsahole, on 12/27/2007, -1/+4Polk County is the asscrack of civilization. I grew up just a few counties over, and most jokes started or ended with something about Polk County or their residents. I think most of the Meth in FL comes from PC...
  - PJ1967, on 12/27/2007, -0/+0Ha ha, I grew up in Pinellas County (Dunedin/Palm Harbor) back in the '70s and early '80s, and Polk County had a "Deliverance" type reputation. Scary.
ElAssoWipo, on 12/26/2007, -13/+228My confidence in humanity was just given cpr.
- noahhoward, on 12/26/2007, -1/+25"cpr"
  
  Thank you, science.
- UwasaWaya, on 12/27/2007, -2/+13Wow, I just turned to a friend and said the same thing. Funny isn't it? Amidst all the anti gay marriage, police brutality and war, there still are things in this world that make me feel like there is hope for humanity.
- BossKey, on 12/27/2007, -1/+18It's a Festivus miracle!
  - blackbeardtron, on 12/27/2007, -1/+6Flying Spaghetti Monster bless us, everyone!!!
- DukeMojo, on 12/27/2007, -1/+7The problem people have with "truth" is that no matter what they do or say about it, it's still the truth. Evolution has happened, is happening, and will always happen. The time is now to evolve our thinking.
  - sinrtb, on 12/27/2007, -0/+5If one does not believe in evolution can their thinking ever evolve?
    - nayajhen, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Deep Words my friend, Deep Words.
blindhammer, on 12/26/2007, -17/+46All Hail Its Noodly Appendages!
- ixach, on 12/26/2007, -3/+24"Its" Noodly Appendages? HIS Noodly Appendages!
ianzu, on 12/26/2007, -54/+31The Flying Spaghetti Monster is just pretend - exactly like God
- radink360, on 12/26/2007, -2/+45That's the whole point.
- alpharaptor, on 12/26/2007, -4/+71The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the illusion of god as an extension of His Complex Carbohydrate Goodness
- HaSatan, on 12/26/2007, -3/+27Thanks, Captain Obvious!
- hmmmok, on 12/26/2007, -2/+33You are really breaking new ground here.
- simplynix, on 12/26/2007, -5/+82FSM is not pretend! Prove to me that he does not exist!
  - brentinkc, on 12/26/2007, -1/+17I love the genius of this argument
    Seriously
    All we had to do this whole time was make up a new religion that made other ones look as preposterous as they really are? Genius.
  - ghettodev, on 12/27/2007, -1/+7Ignore the unbelievers simplynix. We know he exists because he speaks to us through the sacred texts and since he caused the sacred texts to be written thats proof the FSM exists.
    
    I dare any Xtians to find fault in that logic.
- nicko68, on 12/26/2007, -37/+7God isn't pretend.
  - ProfessorRiffs, on 12/26/2007, -1/+22Prove to me that you are telling the truth.
    - nicko68, on 12/26/2007, -16/+3If I didn't believe in Him, yet I told you He's isn't pretend, I'd be lying. I do believe in Him, and I'm telling you He isn't pretend, therefore I'm telling the truth.
      - sir_nacnud, on 12/26/2007, -0/+15If I believe I can fly and I tell you I'm not pretending, then I am telling the truth? I think not!
      - Aupajo, on 12/26/2007, -0/+14You think that's an argument? Regardless of whether you're telling the truth or not, science doesn't care about your wishes. Science relies on empirical evidence to back up claims, not opinion of the masses. And what do you have? An ancient book riddled with half-remembered, garbled stories passed down from the generations which was written by hundreds of people, altered countless times, "corrected" by unknown people throughout history. In fact, the only reason you believe in a god is because that book, those stories, tell you it must be true.
        
        What is faith to science? Why do we need it to be decent human beings? Can't we live with decent morals without attributing it to a book whose morals are sketchy most of the time anyway?
      - blackbeardtron, on 12/27/2007, -0/+5@Aupajo
        EXACTLY. The Bible is a collection of writings that have been translated throughout history, and altered tons of times. Something that proves it is the truth by stating in itself "everything written here is true" is like reading one of those garbage tabloid magazines.
        Why can't people just be decent human beings without subscribing to a way of thinking that leads them down the road to condemning their fellow humans to a "pit of hellfire" or a "death to infidels"?
      - aurorion, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2Your IQ seems to be really enhanced from all the Bible reading.
    - ozydingo, on 12/26/2007, -0/+11My new raison d'etre: I am, therefore I am.
    - blackbeardtron, on 12/27/2007, -0/+4@ozydingo
      That was Popeye's motto...
      "I am what I am, and that's all that I am..."
    - Fordi, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2But the Flying Spaghetti Monster is? Have you evidence to either?
      
      Hypocrite.
  - chrispr, on 12/26/2007, -3/+6LOL JK he totally is!
  - ProducedRaw, on 12/26/2007, -1/+8Neither is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I just hope that the world realises this and stops oppressing pirates before global warming gets out of control!
  - MrPeach, on 12/29/2007, -0/+0Oh, you are such a kidder!
- SQLserver, on 12/26/2007, -1/+16Do not Scorn his awesome noodly power by comparing him to a pagan god!
- buckrogers1965, on 12/26/2007, -1/+13Blasphemer! My followers call shenanigans on your followers!
- johnnick, on 12/26/2007, -1/+15Flog the unbeliever with a wet noodle until he recants his heresy!
  - atticus8, on 12/27/2007, -0/+3It was during the Great Inquisition of 1073 that the ancient Order of Tagliatelle decreed that whipping with a wet noodle was the official "enhanced interrogation technique" for prying information from their rivals, the dread House Salad.
- LeeSoong, on 12/26/2007, -5/+4I'm Making a note here: Huge Success.
- c0n724ll10n, on 12/27/2007, -1/+41. Existence is better than non-existence.
  2. The Flying Spaghetti Monster possibly exist.
  3. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is greater than all things possible.
  Therefore: the Flying Spaghetti Monster MUST exist.
- alwilson, on 12/27/2007, -2/+2It's all a question of faith
DeusNova, on 12/26/2007, -90/+8As a resident of Pinellas county, I'm with our school board staff members. =/
- NoCt1, on 12/26/2007, -2/+20beware the monster will come for you
- Destardi, on 12/26/2007, -4/+32Which version of the "creator" do you want to go along with that?
  
  Yours, or the other 5 million and 83?
  
  If you don't understand Evolution and evolution....or theory and Theory...you really shouldn't be speaking on the issue.
- JoeVet, on 12/26/2007, -2/+21Perhaps you should also teach something about the constitution and the bill of rights in your schools too. Does you school teach any lessons on government and the separation of church and state? Its clear that Florida schools do not like to teach science.
  - Monarch818, on 12/26/2007, -14/+2There is no Separation of Church and State in the Constitution. The concept of Separation of Church and State was from a Supreme Court Ruling. The Constitution only states that the Congress Shall Pass No Laws regarding Religion.
    - cranium, on 12/27/2007, -1/+8Is there *any* subject you Jesus freaks do well in?
- DeusNova, on 12/26/2007, -3/+33*****. I meant I'm disgusted. Digg me down all you want...bleh. I didn't proof read my simple sentence.
  - johnnick, on 12/26/2007, -0/+13Just wanted you to know that someone saw your retraction.
  - brentinkc, on 12/26/2007, -1/+8Just wanted you to know that someone saw your retraction and laughed their ass off.
    Now go write those ***** (that you elected) and give them a piece of your mind.
- REsplin, on 12/26/2007, -4/+3why would you admit that?
- LeeSoong, on 12/26/2007, -2/+11By Thor's Great Hammer!
  
  Someone please think of the Children ?!?
  - RandomGorilla, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2Go to any Catholic Church and you'll find that they already are.
vikki77, on 12/26/2007, -7/+40I'm ashamed to be Floridian sometimes. This would be one of those times. This is also one reason why my parents paid for private school.
- chrispr, on 12/26/2007, -2/+10Yep, certain parts of Florida suck. You can really run the gambit from conservative to liberal in this state.
  - Fordi, on 12/27/2007, -0/+6Not to be a dick, and I agree with your point (it applies to Pennsylvania just as well), but the term is 'gamut' (complete subset of colors), not 'gambit' (from chess, a sacrifice made to obtain statistical advantage).
    - sinrtb, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2ha awesome! I usually hate these comments but this one taught me something new, thank you.
    - reddfox321, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1knowing is half the battle...
- nolesfan247, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2Yeah, I live about 30 minutes from Polk County (Seminole County, where schools don't suck) and even though I hadn't heard about this as they are more included in Tampa news than Orlando, everyone knows that it's just a bunch of trailer parks and a 10 minute drive to Disney out there...
  - JoeDiggsIt, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Holy *****, another Seminoles fan!
  - vikki77, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1I live in Seminole County, too. It's definitely different than Polk!
- DukeMojo, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2Same problem here in Texas.
byrdgang, on 12/26/2007, -13/+252I am sick and tired of these Pastafarians trying to impose their views on us. Ridiculous!
- d0onut, on 12/27/2007, -6/+18Our views are obviously the right ones.
- BlackJackJester, on 12/27/2007, -1/+3You incorrectly spelled Ridiculous right. It's supposed to be Rediculous.
- atticus8, on 12/27/2007, -0/+8When I take the holy sacrament of His Body, cover it in a rustic tomato sauce, and solemnly swallow it -
  when I hear His Whole Wheat Voice in my heart singing Bob Marley songs while I seek donations for Him -
  when I realize that life couldn't have just started itself, but must have come from a source -
  and when I realize that that source was probably pasta -
  that's when I know my faith is True Faith. Ramen.
- Jpotts12, on 12/27/2007, -0/+3Stop trying to subvert tradition you commy! This country was founded on a belief in the flying spaghetti monster, if you've ever read the declaration of independence or the constitution. We cannot have true freedom without a belief in the flying spaghetti monster. In fact, I'd say that you aren't a true American unless you believe in the great omnipotent noodler. Get the hell out of here.
saunders45, on 12/26/2007, -7/+24Ignorance is bliss...
- noahhoward, on 12/26/2007, -1/+15...for the ignorant.
- crazydiode, on 12/27/2007, -1/+5then why aren't most people happy??
  - technoredneck, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Because ignorance is like heroin: once you get started, you require more and more to reach that blissful state, until you reach the point where you're only doing it to feel normal and avoid withdrawals.
bgmowen, on 12/26/2007, -20/+15***** dugg!
shawnolds, on 12/26/2007, -11/+175Intelligent design is not science!
- 5urr3al5am, on 12/26/2007, -83/+9evolution has been described by many top scientists as 'junk science' .. how do you reconcile the differences?
  - TheHydrogens, on 12/26/2007, -4/+52Links to these top scientists?
    What differences are we supposed to reconcile?
    Even if evolution was completely wrong, that would not make ID any more right. Attacking evolution is just a distraction from the fact that ID has no substance.
  - zeitgueist, on 12/26/2007, -3/+47Oh really. I can find you a list of 800 PhD's with the name of "Stephen" who think that it's not. I'd like 5 "top" scientists who disagree. Actually if you want to give me 3 its fine. Or even 1. Don't worry I'll wait.
    - h0merg0mez, on 12/26/2007, -25/+1http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5725394906 ...
      
      There are many uncertanties and contradictions in respect to evolutionary theory. When you go to the origin of evolution, it's just the thoughts of one man that has held up until now. You still can't just lump it together with the word "fact", though it IS based on sceintific research, and is probably the most REASONABLE explaination to the origin of life. But believing it in full doesn't make your beliefs superior to a Creationist's views by any means.
      - brstilson, on 12/27/2007, -2/+17Yes it does, because there is solid evidence to back up a belief in evolution, and there is no evidence to back up a Creationists' views.
      - doskir, on 12/27/2007, -1/+10so i take it gravity is wrong too since its just the thought of one man that held up until now
      - Identity4, on 12/27/2007, -0/+10The process by which evolution was derived makes it superior to a creationist's views.
      - Daz3, on 12/27/2007, -1/+10"probably the most REASONABLE explaination to the origin of life"
        Evolution doesn't describe the origin of life at all, stop confusing abiogenesis and evolution.
      - Fordi, on 12/27/2007, -1/+3That video, in short, explains that there is evidence of past radioactivity in solid granite caused by the energetic decay of Polonium-218 after the granite was formed. What the guy ignores is that there are many forms of non-energetic decay in radioisotopes, many of which could form polonium in temperature/pressure systems that represent the cooling-but-solid periods of granite. Basically, "We don't know how it could have happened in classical geological theories, it must've been god!"
        
        Seriously, both arrogant and moronic.
    - thesonofdarwin, on 12/26/2007, -1/+18Regardless of whether evolution is nonsense (which it isn't), here's the kicker - it's based on SCIENCE. Taught in SCIENCE classes. ID is not SCIENCE and has no place there. Period. Arguing the validity of the theory is totally irrelevant. This case here is science vs. non-science, and the case is 100% clear-cut. Teach ID in religion classes. Good luck with that.
  - brstilson, on 12/26/2007, -4/+38many top scientists = extreme fringe elements of the scientific community like Michael Behe, who's notions have been disproved over and over again.
    - atticus8, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1It sounds so ugly when you say it THAT way. The first way doesn't frighten the children.
  - HotWingBias, on 12/26/2007, -2/+17You're probably used to not citing any proof for your claims, aren't you?
  - Turambar, on 12/27/2007, -1/+16he probably thinks a degree from Liberty University actually has any real merit, other than a job with the bush admin.
    - djscsi, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Actually, he has a PhD from Phoenix Online University, one of the most respected institutions in intelligent design study.
  - jparkinson, on 12/27/2007, -1/+3Is being 'offensively misinformed' a good enough reason to click that little link after i digg it down?
- joshman5k, on 12/26/2007, -3/+15Kent Hovind and Ken Ham are not top scientists.
  - CsHiRrIhSc, on 12/27/2007, -11/+1Maybe they're not "top scientists" because they don't support main stream views? Their scientific views and reasons are very intelligent. If you pick up a book ...maybe watch a few of his debates and keep an open mind you might understand a little more
    - AhronZombi, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2maybe their not top scientists because they are illogical thinkers. when you religofacists call evolution a theory you tend to forget most of science is theory very good theory that is linked to many other parts of science. you know gravity is a theory , do you think its not real like you think evolution isnt?
      - CsHiRrIhSc, on 12/31/2007, -0/+1I guess it's the "religofacists" nature in me that leans towards the most logical explanation of evolution and creation. Maybe you tend to forget that the proof for the beloved evolution theory is zero. You use something as tangible as gravity to compare against creation. Well...if you haven't noticed gravity has the ability to be tested and proofen. Evolution is simply the attempt to find the origin of life. The problem is it cant be tested nor is there any solid proof for such a highly accredited theory. When you try to join good science with a poor theory you get many contradictions in which the public is too complacent to investigate. All I'm trying to say is play both sides of the fence don't accuse me and people like me of being "religofacist" because we offer another side to the very dangerous story of evolution.
    - toxicshok, on 12/27/2007, -1/+3Kent Hovind has a degree from a non-accredited university and is in jail for tax evasion. Yeah he isn't a top scientist nor is he intelligent.
    - aurorion, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2No thanks, there are enough jokes in the Bible.
    - Fordi, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2Kent Hovind and Ken Ham are not scientists because they don't seem to be able to apply the scientific method in a meaningful way.
- tim04, on 12/27/2007, -2/+14I hate how people think that evolution is just a fancy theory that sounds good, but with no proof. The fact is evolution HAS been observed in bacteria and small animals with short life cycles. The only part that makes it a theory regarding humans is that no one has actually seen it in humans, but even that has strong evidence like the Lucy skeleton. Also, we are NOT descended from apes like the ones you see today (chimps, gorilla, etc.), they are only our cousins who along with us are descended from the same previous evolutionary form.
- Jpotts12, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1Nor is it really "intelligent".
- mcduckov, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Anything can be made into science if it is done properly. All you really need to do is observe phenomenon and then come up with testable hypotheses that explain those phenomenon. The phenomenon of life is a pretty big one and if you want to explain life with a hypothesis it is going to have to be pretty complex and it will have to make testable predictions. If you want to hypothesize that life on the Earth was created by an Intelligent Designer then you have to start coming up with hypotheses that yield testable predictions.
  
  Of course you run into trouble right away because the hypothesis is that there is a being of unlimited power and intelligence that created everything and can manipulate all our senses down to the subatomic level. What testable predictions does that yield? Since the ID would have absolute power over the material (and spiritual) world then it is very difficult to conceive a test for your hypothesis. Descartes tried to do this a few hundred years ago (and failed, IMO) and not a whole lot has changed.
JenadaeXX, on 12/26/2007, -8/+91:( this is my school district....
- NoCt1, on 12/26/2007, -6/+17lol
- secrity, on 12/26/2007, -1/+19What are YOU doing to purify the school board?
  - JenadaeXX, on 12/26/2007, -3/+42I dropped out, aquired a GED and moved on to college.
    - karmakanic, on 12/26/2007, -0/+27Ah - wisdom, even in Florida.
    - endersadvocate, on 12/26/2007, -10/+1I dont see how this is smart. Please explain.
      - Fordi, on 12/27/2007, -0/+6When your support system is made of jell-o, leaning on it is not a good idea.
    - johnaliii, on 12/27/2007, -12/+0*acquired
      
      Go back to high school and learn how to spell.
  - slvrbullet87, on 12/26/2007, -5/+2Come on goin in Wolvie berserk style
    
    Name that reference
    - Owwmykneecap, on 12/26/2007, -6/+1Mallrats - Brodie
      - slvrbullet87, on 12/26/2007, -3/+4close mallrats - Jay
        
        You take out LaFures with the sock full of quarters then I attack the pin Wolvie berserk style. The stage crashes down blickiy bam then we go smoke a bowl
      - alpharaptor, on 12/27/2007, -1/+2Snickity Snikt!
- endersadvocate, on 12/26/2007, -13/+3what school do u go to?
  
  i go to LHS
  - LilJimmyNordin, on 12/27/2007, -0/+16Digg's comment system ≠ Facebook
  - CJUNIT, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2no ASL then? =(
    - snarkleclackers, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1PEDOBEAR APPROVES!
  - bagelpirate, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Did they teach English?
  - JenadaeXX, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1HCHS, well i did
- skyshock1, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1My sincerest condolences. Mojo sent.
SirZRX, on 12/26/2007, -18/+26im still amazed... why people believe in this *****? are they serious?
- karmakanic, on 12/26/2007, -0/+30Which *****? The God thing, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster thing?
- koreth, on 12/26/2007, -1/+19Mostly because their parents indoctrinated them from birth (mommy and daddy are pretty much the ultimate experts when it comes to accurately describing the origin and nature of the universe), or because they believe that wanting something to be true causes it to be true in reality (I don't want to live in a universe governed solely by natural laws, therefore Lot's wife was transformed into a pillar of salt, QED.)
  
  It's all pretty silly and pointless but then so is "Battlestar Galactica" and I enjoy that, so whatever.
  - atticus8, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2Does your love of Battlestar Galactica allow you to petition the government successfully to have both your income and your real estate property be granted tax-exempt status?
    When you wrote "or because they believe that wanting something to be true causes it to be true in reality" it reminded me immediately of chain letters. Specifically, of a comment I saw on youtube somewhere that started something like this: "ohnoohno pleeeez pLEAse stop reading this. its so horrible, i'm sorry i had to!!!!!! /////// IF YOU DON'T REPOST THIS MESSAGE 20 TIMES IN 20 MINUTES THEN YOUR MOM WILL DIE IN 4 HOURS......"
    Think about the psychology of someone who would post such a pathetically ridiculous note, think of the true lack of critical thinking skills in such a person, and you know why religion still exists and will exist. Hell, Mormonism as a whole strikes me as a plot by a few of the most unscrupulous hucksters in the Christian movement at that time just writing more crazy stuff to see what they could get away with.
- d0onut, on 12/27/2007, -1/+9I know. This whole 'Christianity' thing is crazy.
- r3negadeX, on 08/11/2008, -1/+2"why people believe in this *****?"
  TEH ENTERAL FIREY DAMNATION OF HELL.
  that's why : )
- KingKobra, on 01/02/2008, -0/+1This is from the hatemail section of prophet Hendersons official website.
  "People will believe anything"
  Do you see the Irony?
  RAmen.
heartsblood, on 12/26/2007, -6/+19mmm spaghetti.
AgmLauncher, on 12/26/2007, -11/+102EXCELLENT!

Tbh, this new satirical religion is actually a useful tool in combating corruption of science in schools run by people who believe in the aether more than physical things around them.

The Pastafarians are like the Boondock Saints of religion.
- onebadsummer, on 12/26/2007, -1/+16Dugg just for the metaphorical reference to the Boondock Saints.
  - coleki, on 12/27/2007, -0/+7it's a simile, but close enough.
- JQP123, on 12/26/2007, -0/+23Ridicule, shame and satire are about the only tools that are effective against those who reject logic and reason.
mrblue182, on 12/26/2007, -12/+73"If (evolution) is taught, I would want to balance it with the fact that we may live in a universe created by a supreme being as well."

i love how he calls intelligent design a fact
- mwalker05, on 12/26/2007, -22/+10he didnt say ID was fact, he only said that the possibility that it is true is a fact. and it is a fact that the possibility exists since you cannot prove it either way.
  - brstilson, on 12/26/2007, -0/+20and you also cannot disprove it was created by a flying spaghetti monster. The whole point of the FSM is to raise the point that if we have to take ID seriously because it can't be disproven, then we have to take every idea that can't be disproven seriously.
  - JoeVet, on 12/26/2007, -0/+19Science does not rely on proving the negative. It is up to the scientists to prove the positive. ID has yet to make even an attempt at using the scientific method to prove their hypothesis.It is at best it is an unsubstantiated hypothesis that has no factual foundation. Lay people call that a fairy tale.
    - bauxzaux, on 12/26/2007, -16/+1Not everything can be proven by science *****.
      - jftitan, on 12/27/2007, -0/+6Not right now, but when science and technology improves... YES Science can disprove, or prove.
        
        Now, I'll refute your argument with...
        
        EVERYTHING CAN BE DIS/PROVEN BY SCIENCE *****. thats why its called science.
      - Fordi, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2"Not everything can be proven by science"
        I suppose not. But then, I would submit that things that cannot be proven by science not be taught in science class. It sounds crazy, I know, but I think that science class should be limited to teaching science.
- zeitgueist, on 12/26/2007, -0/+28"The fact that we may".....wow, the cognitive dissonance needed just to form that sentence....
  - pauldy, on 12/26/2007, -2/+2Is that your phrase of the day cause your not using it right? He is quite clearly using the phrase to explain that there are no known facts as to the origin of man. This is why the whole FSM argument worked so well because it is also currently a fact that we may have all been created by a flying spaghetti monster. Understanding the unknown as an unknown is not dissonance in any form. Your interpretation of the quote however is another story.
    - reaperhatch, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" -Christopher Hitchens
      I find your support of ignorance disturbing.
- K3ITHK, on 12/26/2007, -0/+13They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time it works, every time.
- ProfessorRiffs, on 12/26/2007, -0/+6Replace fact with notion pls k thx
- Ganesh420, on 12/26/2007, -0/+11Not in SCIENCE class, please. Science is based on facts and proving or disproving theories using observable facts. There are SOCIOLOGY and WORLD HISTORY and Literature classes that I would welcome discussion of various religious beliefs (if you teach about one, then you must also discuss others) and how they relate to society. That's pretty much how it was handled by my teachers when I was a kid. That was in public schools here in Nebraska, a pretty hardcore Christian state.
  
  Why is this so hard? Talk about religion in schools, in context, and we're cool. Just don't push one sect's beliefs on my kid as facts to base the history of the universe on.
  - osbjmg, on 12/26/2007, -0/+6Agreed!
kwansolo, on 12/26/2007, -5/+32These kinds of things are the best use of the Internet.
sundarlal, on 12/26/2007, -44/+3The religion of science has struck upon me the feeling that post rectal discharges come from a predetermined place
muhadeeb, on 12/26/2007, -15/+2definitely Clueless in the classical sense
- ub3rgeek, on 12/26/2007, -0/+10opposed to clueless in the post-modernist sense.
  - LilJimmyNordin, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2or Clueless in the Amy Heckerling sense.
teejaay, on 12/26/2007, -6/+7most excellent!
soccerman90, on 12/26/2007, -7/+66Thank you FSM for making our school system better.
RAmen
cavie2002, on 12/26/2007, -5/+37let my noodles gooooooo
detree, on 12/26/2007, -5/+164The Pastafarians are God's chosen people, if you think otherwise you are anti-Pasta.
- Allusion219, on 12/26/2007, -0/+11comic gold
  - Waterrat, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1 You know it!
- onClipEvent, on 12/26/2007, -2/+11maybe antipasto?
- ThreeDee912, on 12/27/2007, -3/+2Copypasta?
booshack, on 12/26/2007, -18/+123I'm so tired of FSM. The problem is, you just can't rationally argue with their view as it is so completely ridiculess. But when you just laugh at the idea of spaghetti in space, they say you have no argument and claim victory.

If only we could come up with some sort of clever analogy to make them realise how stupid they sound. Lol, how about some old bearded guy in space and a garden with naked chicks and a boat with all animals haha!!
- Superdemon, on 12/26/2007, -22/+4What makes your God better then mine?
  - booshack, on 12/26/2007, -2/+13I'm not saying the bearded vacuum-breathing grandpa is better than FSM, I'm just suggesting it as a random alternative so you can see that they have a lot in common and are equally stupid.
  - REsplin, on 12/26/2007, -0/+6obviously Superdemon is not a golfer
  - d0onut, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1A bigger fanclub.
    
    /sarcasm
  - BlacklabelSAR, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Tentacles.
- soccerman90, on 12/26/2007, -33/+15Dont you realize your first paragraph take FSM and put in christianity and it will mean the exact same thing. You cand argue with anyone who has strong beliefs in your religion, and FSM is just pointing that out
  - booshack, on 12/26/2007, -2/+25/facepalm
  - TheHydrogens, on 12/26/2007, -1/+17Wow soccerman... that was an incredible failure.
  - zeitgueist, on 12/26/2007, -0/+20I specifically looked at the replies to that comment because I knew that there was going to be some idiot who didn't get it.
  - simplynix, on 12/26/2007, -1/+14Failure like that shouldn't be buried, it should be dugg for the world to see.
  - Memitim, on 12/26/2007, -0/+21Wow. I have seen many, many occasions of people missing a joke but you may very well have broken the all-time record. You just completely explained the content of booshack's joke and yet didn't actually get that it was one. My mind has been completely blown; thank you for ruining any chance that I'll ever enjoy hallucinogenics.
  - brentinkc, on 12/26/2007, -0/+4In the words of one Red Foreman
    "Dumbass!"
  - alexkorova, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2http://dump.slaffs.com/dumpat/fail.png
  - BlacklabelSAR, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1See those trees? They are part of a forest.
    But, let's not be too tough on soccerman, this is just another example of an emotional issue affecting people's ability to critically think.
- krnldmp, on 12/26/2007, -1/+27I propose a Pastafarian pope to enforce the proper interpretation of the message.
  - zoethebitch, on 12/27/2007, -3/+3Pastafarian Pope? Ambiguous European ancestry, old but not ancient, wise looking, funny hat. Here's my suggestion: http://tinyurl.com/34srr4
  - atticus8, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Who but a Pastafarian pope could tell us who deserved a pasta jihad this month? Who else's judgment would be so scornful, so empowering? I mean, how will we know otherwise who we are supposed to kill? ..... you know, for the faith. I'm not a murderer or anything. I'm just a believer, and I am going to be the most useful one ever.
- davidjsmitty, on 12/27/2007, -0/+13I see what you did there.
- brinco, on 12/27/2007, -9/+4The point is that a flying spaghetti monster is just as probable as the Christian's god. However 'ridiculous' you may think it is.
  If it were taught for thousands of years that this were true, you would say the same thing if I said there was a man in the sky who created us.
  
  It works best because of the odd analogy.
  
  Ramen.
  - booshack, on 12/27/2007, -0/+8You are the second person to explain the joke without getting it.
    Lots of head explosion going on over here!
    - p0tent1al, on 12/27/2007, -3/+1elaborate then please
    - brinco, on 12/29/2007, -0/+1No, I do get the joke. Saying that you need to come up with a new analogy for us to realise we're being odd is retarded. As we all understand how 'stupid' it sounds, but that's part of the act.
- djscsi, on 12/27/2007, -0/+3Brilliant.
Destardi, on 12/26/2007, -7/+43Aaaah, yes. China never had it so good...we're giving up our Science education to protect our belief in God.

Great, what a nice country we'll have after a few decades of being backwater, science-less know nothings, while other countries excel in Science.

YAY!
- LeeSoong, on 12/26/2007, -2/+5http://www.amazon.com/Idiocracy-Luke-Wilson/dp/B00 ...
  
  Oh My Pasta, it is happening, NOW!
- Barbosa, on 12/26/2007, -1/+6The mere fact that the rest of the science-using world will leave us in their dust SHOULD be enough to make school boards think twice about trying to put ID in science class... unfortunately were still slowly heading in reverse anyway.
- platypibri, on 12/27/2007, -5/+2Like believing that two fish had sex and made a bird has anything to do with designing a stealth aircraft. You people are so bass ackwards it's comical. And telling kids that they are a cosmic accident really motivates them to launch satellites and cure cancer.
  It's the fact that we are fat on the milk and honey of a few generations of hard charging (dare I say, God Fearing) go-getters who exercised some personal initiative and won the cold war that our lazy kids are falling behind the third world.
  That and the fact that we let the third world in, treat them like first class citizens at the expense of legal residents, give them free health care, and stunt the education of our own children to catch them up on a language they don't even want to speak because they are so proud of the homeland that gave them nothing.
  There is so much wrong with our public schools that we'd have to fix a whole ton of crap before debating where we came from would even show up on the radar.
mwalker05, on 12/26/2007, -32/+5maybe if instead of acting like condescending assholes by spamming emails and tossing insults, somebody could present a balanced and respectful explanation of evolution to them, and how they can keep their religion perfectly intact and still understand the science behind the theory, the school board might listen? naw nevermind, its a lot cooler to do it your way.
- buckrogers1965, on 12/26/2007, -1/+20It's more fun to taunt the crazies until they go berserk.
- JoeVet, on 12/26/2007, -0/+25Do you really think these type of people are open to rational discussion?
  - Barbosa, on 12/26/2007, -0/+8I guess you didn't see the documentary on the Dover school board's evolution/ID debate on PBS. The opposition brought in tons of scientists who attempted to calmly and respectfully explain evolution to the IDers, but they made up their minds already.
    - fallsroad, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1What's more comical about the Dover case is that several school board members had never even read the proposed curriculum thoroughly, and had no clear idea what it entailed.
      
      Yet, they were "for it".
    - aurorion, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1"But.. But... But.. The Bible says otherwise!!!"
- mwalker05, on 12/26/2007, -5/+2some of them are. but being hostile will only make it worse.
  - archimago42, on 12/27/2007, -0/+3You want to rationally explain evolution to religious zealots but you can't find the reply button on digg. I somehow think you'll fail.
- fallsroad, on 12/26/2007, -1/+5Here you go, written by a theologian no less.
  
  http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/12/18/john ...
  
  "Haught is an intriguing figure in the debate over evolution. He was the only theologian to testify as an expert witness in the landmark 2005 Dover trial that ruled against teaching intelligent design in public schools. Haught testified against intelligent design, arguing that it's both phony science and bad theology."
- Syntaxis, on 12/26/2007, -1/+10My ex boss (mind you, this is in the Netherlands, a lot of people are atheist here) believes in the young earth idea (cliff notes: earth is less than 6k years old, dino's lived with man, etc.) - there is no chance he'll change his view on things, no matter how many arguments you bring. They always come back with stuff you can't disprove. Like: "prove to me god doesn't exist", "prove to me those fossils weren't put there by satan", "prove to me there isn't enough water on earth to cover every mountain in the big flood".
  
  These people are not open to a good discussion because they have locked their mind to everything. And while I never really tried to convince him of my standpoints (I only proved his points to be false) I wouldn't even try to make him into a non-believer. Because I know he needs religion and he can't live without it.
  
  The problem is when these religious folks try to impose their ridiculous beliefs onto innocent children (who are likely already brainwashed into believing in some god, but that's beside the point I'm trying to make) - they should keep it private. Not in schools. Not even in private school. If you TEACH your children, you should be forced to teach them facts, not fiction.
  
  But the USA is a long way from being forced to teach just facts...
  And sadly, so is my country. We have our own little bible belt...
  - Daz3, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1If that is how he argues (prove God doesn't exist etc..) you should explain to him the logical fallacy entitled 'argument from ignorance'.
- brentinkc, on 12/26/2007, -1/+5Dude, Darwin came up with natural selection one hundred and thirty ***** years ago. Don't you think that over the last century this concept has been explained pretty well?
  You can only beat a dead horse for so long before it just turns into mush and hair and decomposes. Then, you have to get out a chainsaw and just start hacking up farm animals. Kind of disturbing, I know, but it's necessary.
- Fordi, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1It's too late for them. Now that they've started to consider intelligent design, the only rational path from there is atheism. There's no way they can keep ID and evolution in their heads and stay religious.
prp40, on 12/26/2007, -39/+17hate me if ya will. digg me down if ya want. im a christian. however my opinion is that evolution should be taught. its a scientific theory(or to some the truth) that you cant hide from and its your choice whether ya believe it or dont. just like being a christian buddhist or beleive in a spaghetti monster is a faith and a choice. i CHOOSE to be christian and believe in the bible but i also choose to learn the theory of evolution. i dont feel like evolution should be banned or even that the christian faith should be taught in the classroom. real christians understand its about choice and we dont want to force our faith on you. i think if your going to take a science class then you need to learn the evolutionary theory and accept that you might or might not agree with it. and if your christian you need to just suck it up and learn the theory, pass the test and go on believing what you want. and if your a spaghetti head then worship a bowl of pasta but know darwins theories. strong evolutionists arent going to be persuaded by the idea of GOD or the spaghetti monster just like strong christians wont believe in evolution. its the people that take these things too far that give us all a bad image. in this particular case i think the school board should just allow the theory to be taught and move on without creationism being forced into the classroom. thats being a bad christian example and one of the biggest reasons people hate us. because they feel forced into a situation with a belief system they dont want any part of.
- buckrogers1965, on 12/26/2007, -2/+18I always stop reading and digg down as soon as I am asked.
  - prp40, on 12/26/2007, -12/+3i wasnt asking i was making a statement. theres a difference in the two.
    
    "hate me if ya will. digg me down if ya want." is a statement giving you a choice to continue reading or be one of the closed minded jackasses that people claim to hate so much. you obviously chose the latter.
- zeitgueist, on 12/26/2007, -3/+28You do realize, there is nothing in evolution that is at odds with Christianity, at all? Evolution doesn't even say where life came from, it describes a process.
  - prp40, on 12/26/2007, -6/+4i realize that. i feel like evolution should be taught and its possible that its true. im a little bit different in my christian beliefs than others. i believe in GOD but i dont beleive we understand fully how he did what he did. evolution could be the answer. i learned evolution in high school. i didnt throw a fit and protest or anything. i knew it was necessary and it was pretty interesting to me.
  - se1zure, on 12/26/2007, -11/+6"there is nothing in evolution that is at odds with Christianity, at all"
    I'm pretty sure your wrong there.
    
    Evolution is contrary to beliefs other than where life came from (which no one has a logical explanation for, and you can argue big bang, but where did that come from?)
    
    Evolution is pretty evident, and I don't think anyone should argue against in unless they are an expert in archeology...
    - Ramble, on 12/26/2007, -4/+11Evolution describes what happened between first life and now, it does not deal with the genesis of life. It can fit perfectly into christian ideology.
      - LeeSoong, on 12/26/2007, -1/+4No, that is where you cross over from biology into physical chemistry, and chemistry into physics.
        
        While all the forces of the universe are pointed towards entropy, heat death, and chaos, naturally you could expect an equal and opposite force to come into play, creating order where the ordered state of molecules is at a lower energy state than the disordered state : Life is created by default.
        
        No Light without Dark, no non-life without life - in this combination of variables of the multiverse - life is a predictable outcome of existence.
      - aurorion, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1That is, unless you choose the believe the Bible, which says some dude named "god" created all universe and organisms including humans in 7 days.
- digitalchris, on 12/26/2007, -12/+7I love how he's being buried, even though he is saying something 99% of diggers agree with, just because he started with "digg me down if ya want. im a christian."
  
  TL;DR runs rampant!
  - TheHydrogens, on 12/26/2007, -2/+14I took one look at that wall of text and dugg it down. It has no capitalization except for a few whole words, and no punctuation except for a few stray periods. If that guy wants his long ass comment to be read, he needs to add in spelling, punctuation, and paragraphs. Otherwise, buried.
  - ozydingo, on 12/26/2007, -1/+6I dugg him down after reading the full text because he has the wrong idea about relating evolution and religion, equating scientific theory with religious belief. Just because he's saying evolution should be taught doesn't mean I should automatically digg him up, if what he's saying is still fundamentally wrong.
  - Biohazard6601, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1ya, a bunch of evolutionists believe in creationism
- mwalker05, on 12/26/2007, -17/+5i dont think you understand evolution. i am a committed christian and believe the science behind evolution. i dont think all animals evolved from a single celled organism or that humans evolved from monkeys, but i do think some of the animals today could have evolved from a different animal that God created a long time ago.
  - Barbosa, on 12/26/2007, -0/+8Huh? evolution a la carte?
  - EarlOfLade, on 12/27/2007, -5/+3This is the typical religious idiot!
    Here you are, probably home schooled and with no education in biology, chemistry, geology or any other form of science, yet you have no problems claiming that a branch of science is not correct based on what? A 2000+ year old goat herder and camel driver scifi book... To hell with all those tens of thousands of people who have devoted their lives to these studies and actually done scientific work, they are all wrong because a bronze age mythological book says so. Man, that must be the pinnacle of stupidity!
  - bdbthinker, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2would you please educate yourself on biology? it would save me a lot of digg downs. kthnx.
  - captric, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1You apparently do not have a clue what evolution is.......everything you said above was probaly told to you by a pastor from a church with zero science education.
- digitalpencil, on 12/26/2007, -6/+6Before you begin grappling with the complexities of evolutionary science, perhaps it would be advisable for you to learn grammar and basic punctuation in an effort to form intelligible sentences. That way you'll stand a far greater chance of participating (and being understood) in a reasoned debate on an issue as complex as this.
- WileyPete, on 12/26/2007, -6/+6Evolution as a theory is a misconception. It's accepted as fact by the scientific community that evolution occurs.
  
  However...there are many theories about how evolution occurs.
- Yage2006, on 12/27/2007, -3/+5Do you believe in gravity it is also a theory you know.
  A theory is the highest honor you can receive in science.
  It means you have withstood attempts at faulsification and can make predictions.
  It should be taught as FACT.
  ID has nothing no proof just notions and its lame attempts at picking at the gaps of evolution.
  And to add those gaps get closed in short order.
  
  There is no point reasoning with the delusional though. Because the will to believe outs the rational mind.
  - tobias1482, on 12/27/2007, -0/+0I really hope that you're not a research scientist...
    
    Gravity has been considered a law for a while. Laws are above theories.
    Theories are only an agreed on guess that are accepted but have the potential to still be disproven.
- tim04, on 12/27/2007, -0/+3I don't understand why you guys are all digging him down and arguing with him. It shouldn't be an atheist's job to destroy religion in others, just not let it get in the way of education, government, etc., which prp40 agrees to as well. He's not even arguing that evolution is wrong, just that he chooses from himself not to believe it. You guys are all getting a little to sensitive and mob like, almost like the religious nuts that we all despise.
  
  *Note I said nuts, not all religious people are bad for society. It is a personal choice as long as it doesn't affect others.
- Biohazard6601, on 12/27/2007, -2/+1***** rednecks making Americans look bad
- iceman0113, on 12/27/2007, -1/+1A couple English classes would help you out in this case, but there is no scientific proof for creationism...
udahlen, on 12/26/2007, -11/+159Personally, I believe in Stupid Design. I firmly believe the Creator was totally drunk when He made the universe, explaining the poor state of things. This theory also explains otherwise unexplainable phenomena such as President Bush and the voters of America.
- ixach, on 12/26/2007, -2/+30SD is as plausible as ID.
  - slvrbullet87, on 12/26/2007, -0/+27Much more possible... I would enjoy learning that god was some lazy programer who put his project straight from alpha testing into the field. then he tried to fix some mistakes(Jesus) and then just said ***** it. That is a great theory
    - LeeSoong, on 12/26/2007, -0/+12When you look at developmental biology, you'll see how a baby human grows through the fish stage, the lizard stage, until finally the tail vanishes and you get a more human looking baby...
      
      Reusing prepackaged (genetic) code is a good example of efficient programming,
      unfortunately for us,
      This Universe is the stage of 'Windows Vista' beta version ...
      
      (The Dinosaurs were the Windows XP SP2 of their time...)
      - Fordi, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2Actually, I think th Win98->XP crossover is a better analogy to lizard->mammal; replace all but the boot-up code with something new.
    - Filipp0, on 12/27/2007, -0/+5And thus the church of the nerds is born.
      
      VBAmen.
      - LeeSoong, on 12/29/2007, -0/+1I would think that DNA codons are more of the ''Assembly Language'' of creatures (figuratively and literally).
        
        Genetics and genes - that gets up another level, I'm not sure what the programming equivalent would be?
- MJG2007, on 12/27/2007, -1/+4We could call the creator "The King of All Cosmos" and what really happened is he got really drunk and put out all the stars and had to get his kid put all the stars back in the sky by rolling a thing called a "Katamari" around.
  - UNL1M1T3D, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2All hail The King of All Cosmos and his large cod piece.
- RareSaturn, on 12/27/2007, -0/+3Yeah why the hell did he make mosquitos? Did he have a nasty streak or what?
- Managore, on 12/27/2007, -0/+3Well that explains the platypus. I always thought of it as God's beta animal.
- shamanlife, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2Your theory sounds plausible. The idea of a single drunk creator makes sense since after studying various cultures around the world, and looking at many old film footage of primitives, I have noticed that there is a concept that is common to all cultures, and that is that we all laugh at fart jokes. I am totally serious, look back at the old films of many anthropologists and you will find that every tribe at some point will laugh at someone farting.... Thus, one can extrapolate from this observation that there is a single common creator, with a sense of humor, or it was drunk.
- atticus8, on 12/27/2007, -0/+3Is that you, Douglas Adams?
omgwthlol, on 12/26/2007, -30/+11~~~~~~~~~cool~~~~~~~~~ - bury this stupid comment
- Haiz, on 12/26/2007, -9/+4No problem.
- ogsy, on 12/26/2007, -1/+2I see you trying to get on that website for the most buried comments on digg! I salute you with a digg. Haha. FAIL.
  - omgwthlol, on 12/27/2007, -1/+3no i just hate all my comments, digg them up if you want
    
    fresty trunic nan
- djscsi, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1dugg for originality.
Dunge, on 12/26/2007, -16/+4What is intelligent design? Never heard of it..... but a spaghetti to laugh at religions is a good thing.
- bdbthinker, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2google is your friend.
- Fordi, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1Intelligent design is a flawed statistical model to discredit the law of natural selection as it applies to evolutionary theory.
  
  In short, there are roughly 3 billion base pairs in the human genome. Consider that to be a number between 0 and 4^3x10^10. Given N as the generational number, and taken at N^2 randoms per generation (assuming 2 children per generation), that still leaves odds of picking even one of the species we have today at something like 1 in 4^1x10^8, which is excessively high for evolution to be taken seriously as the mechanism by which humans came about.
  
  But as I said, the model is flawed. We don't throw randoms at genetic code, otherwise the odds of you having a mouse baby would be identical to the odds of your having a human baby. The correct statistical analysis goes like this:
  Given a self-replicating protein.
  Replication is imperfect.
  Survival of progenitors is floating, but is rarely 100%, and never 0% (total extinction).
  Replication cycle time is floating, but starts at a very small interval and grows logarithmically with a node of roughly 14 years at 4 billion years.
  Replication may be direct from parent, or a random composite of many parents, but always keeps positional information.
  
  It turns out that these odds produce something of human-level complexity in relatively short order (2 billion to 5 billion years). As a result, the odds of something of human level complexity occurring around the time of the evolution of modern humans is identity. Another benefit of this model is that it predicts that once a human-level complexity sentience forms, there will be a *very* broad variety of less complex forms all the way down to the self-replicating proteins (we know them as prions).
comeandtakeit, on 12/26/2007, -16/+1The Crawling Canole Creature created a cadre of creepy christian "Catholics"
- LilJimmyNordin, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2M: The principle's the same. The Mohmedans don't come 'round here wavin' bells at us! We don't get Buddhists playing bagpipes in our bathroom! Or Hindus harmonizing in the hall! The Shintus don't come here shattering sheet glass in the *****, shouting slogans-
  
  W: Allllllright, don't practice your alliteration on me...
- Biohazard6601, on 12/27/2007, -0/+1did he just use repetition in a comment?
  - ordig, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2No he used alliteration.
digitalchris, on 12/26/2007, -10/+16I sincerely hope that the reporter was wearing full pirate regalia when describing Pastafarianism. To do otherwise is sacrilege.
- brentinkc, on 12/26/2007, -0/+9Yeah really. How the ***** are we supposed to combat global warming if people won't follow this simple rule?
buckrogers1965, on 12/26/2007, -2/+30I love it when you are explaining how his noodley goodness created the universe on a napkin and you draw the flying spaghetti monster, then the mountain, and then the midget. The expression on peoples faces when you label the midget is priceless.
santaliqueur, on 12/26/2007, -17/+22These "intelligent" design people are silly, and closed minded. Is it so impossible to believe that there exists a being, or force, which created the universe...AND evolution? It's not either/or.

I believe 100% in science, but to say that "god" doesn't exist because we can prove the Big Bang

Flying spaghetti monster defeats anti-evolution FL school