The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search
Please observe discussion policy and use talk pages only for reviewing articles.

Artwork and article

I am against having the unedited version of the artwork on the CreationWiki.

--Mr. Ashcraft 16:59, 27 November 2006 (EST)

Exactly what do you mean by "unedited"? Scorpionman 12:21, 29 November 2006 (EST)

"Unedited" - meaning, including the text. The text that accompanies the image is particularly offensive and should be left out.

Personally, I'm not sure about publicizing this sacrilege here anyway. Anyone else think this article should be deleted?

--Mr. Ashcraft 00:41, 4 December 2006 (EST)

As the one who created the article, I clearly do not think it should be deleted. The article is not promoting the Monster, but contrasting it to creation and comparing it with evolution. If we choose to not "publicise this sacrilege", why also "publicise" the sacrilege of evolution? The Monster is part of the anti-creationist armoury, and having an article about—pointing out the faults of the argument—is as appropriate as articles about other anti-creationist arguments. Philip J. Rayment 03:47, 12 December 2006 (EST)

I don't see why it should be deleted as it just presents a contrast between intelligent design and creationism. There is a short response to the idea but it may need to articulate these ideas further. --Gil 00:28, 4 January 2007 (EST)

The problem is not the article, but the FSM image. Furthermore, the offensive nature is not apparent to all, especially with the text removed. I can stomach most religious parodies, such as those of the Ichthys, but this particular image was obviously inspired by the image caption, which is the ultimate source of the problem. --Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 10:58, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Off-topic discussion

Please note the CreationWiki discussion policy. The following has stemmed way off the topic of this article and really belongs on a discussion forum.--Mr. Ashcraft 00:41, 4 December 2006 (EST)

I find it strange that you say "Evidence for evolution is not to be questioned." As in any science, evidence for evolution is being questioned all the time. Your Evolution Myths article lists several items that were considered evidence, but were questioned and discarded by scientists themselves, not by creationists.

I like to check out the facts to ensure that I know what I'm talking about, so I just bought a used introductory college biology text to see what it has to say. It has one section entitled "The Tentative Nature of the Evolutionary History of Organisms" [Enger, Eldon D, and Ross, Frederick C. (2003)Concepts in Biology, Tenth Edition. Boston: McGraw-Hill, p.229], which hardly suggests something not to be questioned.

On the other hand, when I send questions to creationist or ID websites, I seldom get an answer. The DI site won't even give me a definition of what their ID theory is. I do appreciate the opportunity to express myself here, and I appreciate even more seeing responses from anyone who comes across my comments.

Then you claim that evolution "Has little supporting evidence." Only almost all of modern biology!

Plus, if you are paying attention, almost every day, at least every week, there is something in the news that provides further evidence supporting evolution. Today there was an item about someone inventing a machine to kill lice, because lice have evolved resistance to the traditional shampoos. Yesterday, there was something about the behavioural similarities between humans and chimpanzees.

--Drlindberg 13:19, 6 November 2006 (EST)

You've brought up some good points here. Unfortunately you're mistaken. "Almost all of modern biology" doesn't support evolution; indeed, much evidence has been found to the opposite. The complexity of all living organisms strongly suggests intelligent design; you wouldn't expect a computer, which is far less complex than even the simplest cell, to have come about by random chance.
True, almost every day there is something in the news that "provides further evidence supporting evolution". However, approximately seven-eighths of this "evidence" is later rejected because it is found to not be consistent with the evolutionary theory.
I note that you complained about not receiving a reply from creationist websites. You must realize that they are extremely busy; indeed, I sent Answers in Genesis an e-mail several weeks ago that has not yet been replied to. Be patient; millions of people are doubtlessly e-mailing them every day, so they can't possibly be expected to reply as soon as you send the e-mail. Be assured that they will be working on a reply as soon as they can.

If you have any more questions, let me know but please remain civil; I've encountered some really nasty arguments on sites such as Wikipedia. Scorpionman 12:20, 29 November 2006 (EST)



Thank you for your reply. I’ll take you up on your kind offer. Here are some further questions/comments:

You say “"Almost all of modern biology" doesn't support evolution;”

Can you tell me what evidence you have for this? I find ample evidence supporting the famous comment by the late Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975) that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,” in almost every biology textbook, article, magazine or website that I look at.

I know that there is a claim out there that the “real” evidence is being suppressed, but I wonder how that could be possible. If the CIA and KGB, with all their persuasive powers, can’t keep their secrets, and the Catholic church can’t keep its members from using birth control, even under threat of eternal damnation, how could hundred of thousands of competing scientists in a broad range of disciplines in various departments in thousands of competing institutions in a hundred or so countries manage to be so well organized and so well disciplined that they could keep their story straight and keep the truth under cover? Do you know of any other human organization in history that has ever managed to perfectly accomplish anything so complex?

And what would the motive be? Do you think people would be willing to spend years of hard physical labour under desert conditions (like the people who found Lucy in Ethiopia) or under Arctic conditions (like those who recently found the Tiktaalik roseae fossil on Ellesmere Island. See: http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/) just to promote an idea that they know is a silly lie? Why?

Next question: What evidence do you have for saying “approximately seven-eighths of this "evidence" is later rejected”? I looked at the catalog at my university and found that they have 10 journals with “evolution” or “evolutionary” in the title. Of course, some of these are not about biological evolution, but many articles on evolution are published in other journals. The ones we outsiders hear about are more likely to be in Science or Nature (like Tiktaalik), for example. The one journal on evolution that I looked into is published 12 times a year with some 18-20 articles per issue. This is probably way above the average, but it would still indicate an enormous amount of research being done. Where is the 7/8 of that which is being rejected (unless you mean in the sense that virtually all scientific date eventually becomes outdated as newer more accurate information is found)?

The concept of “intelligent design” has a couple of different meanings. The Discovery Institute defines it as follows: “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” (Personally, I wouldn’t consider this concrete or specific enough to qualify as a scientific theory, but perhaps that’s just my hang-up.) They go on to say “If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory.” As I understand it, this would contradict the CreationWiki POV.

“Intelligent design” could also be taken more vaguely as just a general sense that the universe was created, irrespective of one’s specific religious or scientific views. I don’t see that either meaning would necessary put it in contradiction to an acceptance of evolution as a biological construct.

There is of course the contrary view. Jane Jacobs used to say, for example, that cities are too complicated to be designed and that they have to grow organically, that each time humans try to design cities they end up a disaster. And as my new biology textbook is telling me, cells seem to make cities look simple (or maybe that's just because I've never been involved in urban administration).

Please explain where I am mistaken, and thank you for your patience. --Drlindberg 15:05, 3 December 2006 (EST)

Okay, I'll start with your first claim above. As I understand it, you have only been looking at textbooks that start from the evolutionary viewpoint; there are a great many that start from the biblical worldview that you haven't yet seen. I myself am studying from one such textbook.
I'm not sure what you mean by "hundred of thousands of competing scientists in a broad range of disciplines in various departments in thousands of competing institutions in a hundred or so countries manage to be so well organized and so well disciplined that they could keep their story straight and keep the truth under cover". Obviously, there are great disputes going on between these hundreds of thousands of scientists in their fields, and saying that they are all very well organized is not entirely accurate because of these conflicts.
And what would the motive be? Do you think people would be willing to spend years of hard physical labour under desert conditions (like the people who found Lucy in Ethiopia) or under Arctic conditions (like those who recently found the Tiktaalik roseae fossil on Ellesmere Island. See: http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/) just to promote an idea that they know is a silly lie? Why? Obviously, they don't know that it's a silly lie, or they wouldn't believe it. It's deception.
Most of the evidence, such as a skull that is supposedly that of a "missing link", is later discarded because of a new discovery. For instance, for over forty years Piltdown man was thought to be a true Missing Link, until it was discovered that it was a hoax. Others, such as Java man and Nebraska man were simply either animals or humans (one of them was built based on a pig's tooth!). Yes, I realize that there is a lot of "evidence" that is held today, but even it is in question; for instance, rocks are usually dated using radiometric dating, and from these findings most people assume that they are billions of years old. But they fail to realize that this dating method is based mostly on assumptions. See the article for details.
Intelligent design doesn't contradict evolution, at least not microevolution. It does contradict the idea that all life came from one common ancestor and that all life forms are gradually becoming more complex. As I understand it, the opposite is happening. Organisms break down and die, and the human gene pool has reached a point where having a child with a relative would make the child extremely weak and deformed. The Bible describes a time where people could marry within their own families, which today would be considered incest.
Cites, I think, don't have much to do with biology, but you can certainly use them as an example in the random chance argument. They're hard to keep up, they pollute, crime and overcrowding occurs, etc. Cells do make cities look simple; after all, we can build megalopolises, yet we can't make a single cell. All our attempts to do this so far end in failure.
Let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks. Scorpionman 22:40, 3 December 2006 (EST)

Hello. I am new, so I presume this is where I must reply, despite my address of issues farther up this paragraph. I have a couple previously mentioned issues to address; and I presume it can be agreed that points, even from topics from which we have "moved on" do not become valid even if fallacious. Firstly, the example about the complexity of a computer standing for intelligent design. This example doesn't hold up because you have used the suspension of one (multicellular life) and applied it to another (computer). The suspension of cellular life is nature, from which more complex, more successful cells will emerge over time. The suspension for computers is human technology, from which more complex and successful computers will emerge. Therefore a complex computer become an analogy with multicellular life, and doesn't indicate an intelligent creator as the sentience of human technology doesn't track in the metaphor, unless someone wants to use this to suggest that cells are created via millions of tiny separate invisible sentient beings working together.

Forgive me if this is untimely, incensing, ill-placed. My sole purpose to come here, actually was to have the phrase, "evidence not to be questioned" on the box of the chart on the main article under evolution. The presumption that evidence for evolution is not to be questioned isn't quite the way science works. Science strives to explain, but never closes the book on an issue; all theories are available for testing and questioning.Goldhero 04:10, 22 February 2011 (PST)

Your reply was put in the right place, although I note Chris Ashcraft's comment at the start of this section about some of this being off-topic. Your objection the the phrase, however, is certainly on-topic. But given that your post has been here for a couple of months without objection, I'll reply to for first objection also, although I think further discussion on this would be a problem.
No argument by analogy is going to be perfect, but that doesn't automatically invalidate them. Although the "suspensions" (environments?) are different, you haven't explained how that difference is relevant; how it invalidates the argument. And, at the same time, you've begged the question by asserting that "The suspension of cellular life is nature, from which more complex, more successful cells will emerge over time". That is they evolutionary claim, but it has not been observed, and the computer argument is an argument by analogy to refute this claim. Your rebuttal to this refutation boils down to claiming "different circumstances" without explaining how the difference in the circumstances nullifies the refutation.
As for the evidence being questioned, this is partly a "taste of your own medicine" type of response: creationists are falsely accused by evolutionists of not allowing their views to be questioned, so they deserve the same thing being said back to them. However, that doesn't mean that the claim (in this article) is without foundation. Although evolutionists will often question particular claims of other evolutionists (with the result that some claimed evidence gets dropped), evolution itself is not allowed to be questioned. This is clear from the extraordinary lengths that evolutionists go to in order to protect their views by suppressing those that question evolution. These have been widely documented, such as here on CreationWiki, in the documentary film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, in the book Slaughter of the Dissidents, and in many other places such as here.
Philip J. Rayment 19:28, 12 April 2011 (PDT)

This article quoted in the secular media!

This article was quoted in an article in "Spiegel Online" on 6th March, 2007 [1]. The article said:

CreationWiki provides its readers with a table aimed at convincing them that creationism is right for the school curriculum while the satiricial "Flying Spaghetti Monster" religion isn't: "It can be seen from the comparison above that there is no basis for teaching students about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but the same cannot be said for Intelligent Design nor creation."

The quote is accurate, but their description of its purpose was wrong. It was not to convince people that creationism is right for the school curriculum, but to point out that the anti-creationist attempt to equate creationism with such fantasies is in error.

Philip J. Rayment 12:36, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Another question

Excuse me for getting off the topic. I hope you won’t think this question is off the topic or derogatory. (I’m just trying to understand. Sorry I’m such a slow learner.)

In the column headed “Evolution,” you say:

“Evidence for evolution is not to be questioned” “Has the support of the vast majority of scientists” “Has little supporting evidence”

If we put these three statements together, don’t they amount to claims that “the vast majority of scientists” are a bunch of morons, since they can’t see that the materials they work with day-in day-out throughout their careers do not amount to real evidence, and that “the vast majority of scientists” are frauds since one of the most basic tenets of science is that everything is to questioned? Wouldn’t the same be true of the universities and pharmaceutical, oil exploration, etc. companies who employ such moronic frauds? Do you have any evidence for such accusations? --Drlindberg 19:11, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Should it be presumed that the majority of humanity is honest, either to each other or to themselves? Or is it very common for individuals as well as groups to latch on to a worldview and stick with for a feeling of self righteousness or pride of their own "knowledge." There are those who accuse both creationists and Christians of this very thing. "Science," explaining humanity as autonomous and all knowing, is one of the great prides of the western (or "civilized") world. "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools." I hope I'm not becoming inflamatory now. This whole topic is insult throwing, flying spaghetti monster and all. --Zephyr Axiom 01:21, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry to be so slow to respond to you, but I have been at a loss trying to understand how your remark related to what I said. Of course, none of us is as honest as we claim to be or would like to be. At first I thought you meant that since other people lied, it’s all right for you to lie. But, on second thought, I’m sure you don’t mean that. I don’t know of any science that explains “humanity as autonomous and all knowing,” but I do think that science, like music, literature and the other arts, as well as technology and many other things, is one of the accomplishments humans (not only the western world) can be proud of. The quotation about the wise becoming fools could apply, I’m afraid, to many on both sides of our little debate. The Bible tells us to become as little children. Children are curious and honest, and this is what ideally scientists should be. I originally understood the spaghetti monster to be a satire intended to point out the logical flaws in certain arguments put out by our ID friends. I never saw it as at insult, but I guess insult is in the eye of the observer, as we see in the broad range of reactions by politicians when they are satired. In my country, even the most straight-laced politicians nowadays appear in TV shows where they help parody themselves.

Incidentally, on my desk, I have a fossil of a trilobite. Trilobites no longer exist. Thus there has been change, evolution. If there is no evidence for evolution, as the article claims, I am hallucinating. I have more evidence for evolution that I do of your existence (Please don’t take that as an insult). Cheers. --Drlindberg 13:33, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Excuse me, Drlindberg, but either my browser is hopelessly garbled--but that can't be right, can it, if I can edit this page? Doctor, what you have said above is a total non sequitur. Trilobites no longer exist, but that does not show evolution; that shows extinction of a species that existed in the pre-Flood world. Now if the mere establishment of a once-thriving but now-extinct species constitutes evidence for evolution, then I am hallucinating.
In all seriousness, no one is accusing you of hallucinating. But I, for one, find your logic deeply flawed.--TemlakosTalk 16:14, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
In agreement with Temlakos. I happen to have a fossil trilobite on my desk as well, but see it as evidence for the Flood and loss of living variety rather than Darwinism. --Zephyr Axiom 17:10, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for getting back so quickly. I don't think my remarks were any more of a non sequitur than the statements in the original article that I was questioning above. First, I did not mention Darwinism. If depends on our definition of evolution, which in its broadest meaning just means change, and what I was saying is that I have obvious evidence of evolution in that sense.

If we take the strawman version of evolution common in anti-evolution literature and websites, I would agree that there is probably not much evidence of that.

But, as for evidence of Darwinism: I understand that Darwin never used the word evolution, but rather spoke of “descent with modification.” He started with three observations (I have added some obvious evidence with each): 1 Each individual in a species is different. (You are different from your parents, siblings, children.) 2. All living creatures tend to produce more offspring than the environment can support. (You have seen this if you have ever weeded a garden, or had to thin out the carrots you had planted.) 3. The differences among individuals affect the possibilities that a given individual will survive long enough to pass along its genetic characteristics. (This of course depends on the environment. In some school subjects, for example, I did better than others, whereas in sports they did better than I. A cat that is quicker is more likely to catch mice. A mouse that is quicker is more likely to get away.)

and he came to the conclusion that, given time, this was sufficient to account for the differences between species. He refused to speculate on how life began.

Of course, he lived long ago, and nowadays the theory and evidence are much more sophisticated.

Incidentally, can you explain how a flood would have resulted in the extinction of a marine creature (or rather many marine creatures, as I read that over 17,000 species of trilobites have been found)?

But let's forget about trilobites and get back to my questions above. Can you enlighten me there? Thanks. --Drlindberg 09:41, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

All right, Drlindberg, you asked for it--and you're going to get it.

You asked:
If we put these three statements together, don’t they amount to claims that “the vast majority of scientists” are a bunch of morons, since they can’t see that the materials they work with day-in day-out throughout their careers do not amount to real evidence, and that “the vast majority of scientists” are frauds since one of the most basic tenets of science is that everything is to questioned? Wouldn’t the same be true of the universities and pharmaceutical, oil exploration, etc. companies who employ such moronic frauds? Do you have any evidence for such accusations?

The statements to which you objected amount simply to this: that those scientists who still believe in evolution (more on that later) are, at best, suffering from a blind spot, and at worst, not complete morons but rather idiot savants--persons living in worlds of their own (from the Greek idios one's own) but who still have skills that are valuable in some highly specific areas of human endeavor. In the case of oil exploration, all that that requires is knowing which stratum is likely to be oil-rich. But that does not require belief in evolution. Even going from geologic strata to evolution is a non sequitur.

Furthermore, I wouldn't count on the "majority of scientists" being all that "vast" today, or even being in the majority. Since 1998, more and more honest scientists have had to admit that the universe is far too finely tuned to have had a totally random origin. The intelligent design movement stems from that realization.

Back to your question: are you, or are you not, willing to admit that those who hold most closely to evolution not only fail to question its veracity but, worse than that, deliberately seek to excommunicate those who do question it from the community of scientists? Take care before you answer, and review our evidences against Eugenie Scott and the National Center for Science Education, two of the worst offenders in this regard.

You will probably repeat your latest answer: that by "evolution" you do not mean what we creationists mean. Then what do you mean? Your newest definition of evolution makes the term operationally meaningless, almost tautological.

You have displayed an attitude quite typical of the naturalistic-materialistic axis within the scientific community. When your opponents (namely ourselves and our allies) call into question the dogma of evolution as we have seen it taught in textbook after textbook for decades (I turn fifty years old this November 24, just to set the record straight), you define evolution down. Back when I was in high school, I got the full, comprehensive lesson on evolution: common ancestry, the Miller-Urey experiment, the early reducing atmosphere, and abiogenesis. That, and the classic Big bang theory. I would learn only later that it was all a fraud, but at least it was self-consistent. And brazen, too--and I respect brass far more than I do hypocrisy.

Today I can't seem to correspond with a single evolutionist who cares to defend the classic model taught in textbooks in my day--and still taught today, by all the accounts that have crossed my console. What I get is the same kind of wishy-washy, weasel-like response that you have now delivered--that "evolution" means only one thing, and that is change (from what?), and that evolution says nothing about origins.

Sir, my question to you is whether you take me for a complete moron? Do you honestly expect me to trust any paradigm that calls itself "evolutionistic," when evolutionists not only lie about what they have, but also lie about what they originally said?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.--TemlakosTalk 11:16, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

And one thing more. You said, "It depends on our definition of evolution." May I say, to paraphrase the late J. Vernon McGee, that you do yourself and your profession a grave disservice when you employ a phraseology identical to that made infamous by a former President of the United States who set a new anti-standard for testimony, and in the process disgraced his office.--TemlakosTalk 11:40, 2 November 2007 (EDT)


Boy! Did I get it!! Thanks for your comments.

I'm sorry if I appear to be trying to fool you. I'm just trying to reconcile statements I find on this and other creationist websites with information I find from other sources. I try to look at as wide a range as possible in order to avoid biases. I'm not asking you to trust anything. And I don't consider anyone my opponents. Presumably we are all searchers after truth.

Can I ask you a couple of questions:

How do you know what my profession is?

How many scientists do you know personally?

Getting back to the lack of evidence of evolution, I just found this: "in the somewhat limited PubMed database, there are about 150,000 primary research articles on evolution." (See details at: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php).

On the dust jacket of Michael J Behe’s new book, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism, we read, “There is little question that all species on earth descended from a common ancestor. Overwhelming anatomical, genetic, and fossil evidence exists for that claim.” Although Behe might not have written that, he presumably must have agreed with it, or else it would not appear. The ID people claim not to be your allies.

I'm going to set your comments aside for rereading and rethinking, but will probably be back with a response later. I certain don't claim to have all the answers. Cheers! --Drlindberg 14:29, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

epistemology

Wasn't the whole point of the invention of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to show that it is easy to come up with something with the same epistemological status as god? Should be included in the article, I'd say. I have been involved in discussions on several topics at creationwiki, but in none, solid evidence has been presented for creationism: since it is also mentioned in this article, can someone enlighten me here? --nooijer 02:10, 23 November (JST)

The issue at hand is the evidence for intelligent design, not YEC. There is solid evidence for ID, but none for the FSM, which is the most ridiculous and fallacy-ridden strawman I've ever seen (or perhaps, we should call it a "straw god"!) Scorpionman 12:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
But solid evidence has been presented in each of the articles. I don't know the basis of your assertion that "in none, solid evidence has been presented for creationism". Scorpionman 12:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)