Reader Feedback 10/11/2005

 Here are some critical and some laudatory reader comments on "Creator with Meatballs."

Your article on the FSM Church made me smile. It has always been maddening to listen to those who feel that Creationism (I'm not falling for that renaming trick!) should be taught as science in school. And the number of educated people (at least in the South) that buy into it is hard to believe. Pastafarianism is a very clever way to highlight the illogical arguments of ID. Science is science and should not be confused with faith. Teaching faith as science to children is a real crime.

(Sami H.)



"Intelligent Design" is not an attack on Darwinian evolution, nor is it a radical movement of Christian fundamentalists. Darwin only attempted to explain the diversity of observed life forms and proposed that this could have come about naturally by means of gradual changes where beneficial mutations became dominant through the process of natural selection (survival of the fittest).

At the time Darwin lived, the cell, the foundation upon which all evolutionary organisms are based, was thought to be no more than a lump of protoplasm and there was no understanding of the complexities of DNA and intra-cellular molecular processes. There is absolutely no way that his theory could have comprehended the development of "life" at this level.

"Intelligent Design" looks at what Darwin was not capable of looking at. It focuses on the development of the cell and the biomolecular evolution that must have occurred in order for the first cell to have come into existence. It asks the question, "Could natural selection have also played a role in the development of intra-cellular functions?" The answer that many leading scientific minds have come to is, "No, the odds against even the simplest of cellular proteins forming spontaneously are simply astronomical. Many of the molecular processes occurring within the cell are irreducibly complex, so only a tremendous leap of faith could allow one to assume spontaneous origins." In addition, it is now recognized that DNA is the most densely coded information in the known universe. Where did this information come from? Did it form spontaneously? If so, by what process? These are reasonable avenues of scientific inquiry.

It also asks the question, "How can we recognize intelligent design?" If you find a statue poking out of the beach sand (like the ones on Easter Island), you are very unlikely to say, "Wow! Look how the wind carved that rock!" It is a very easy matter for someone of even limited intelligence to recognize that the rock shape was "designed" and "constructed" by some intelligence. By whom, we don't know. For what purpose, we don't know. But it is clearly not a "natural" formation. So the "Intelligent Design" school attempts to define logical rules by which "designed" structures can be detected from natural, random structures. This would seem to be a reasonable effort if we are to take an unbiased look at the universe. (The presumptions that there is or is no intelligent creator of the universe are equally biased. Why not have an open mind?)

It may be true that fundamental Christian organizations welcome this scientific support for "a God" behind the universe, but the "Intelligent Design" movement does not directly make any such claim or support a religious dogma. It is simply an attempt to observe the natural world around us using the latest possible scientific data and attempt to explain what is observed. Why should this information be suppressed? Who are the ones with the closed minds?

If you are ever serious about understanding "Intelligent Design" instead of just throwing meatballs at something about which you know nothing, I suggest reading Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box". I think you will find it enlightening and scientific to the core.

(Brent S.)



This certainly explains the fact that refined carbohydrates, and particularly pastas, are capable of releasing serotonins and other feel-good chemicals in the human brain. Clearly this illustrates the FSM's intelligent desire to have Her human creations be happy in their relation to her, and is another important piece of evidence to support this theory. I'll be sure to thank the FSM tonight when I say grace over my 3 cheese tortellini with pesto. I do think we need to make sure that Pastafarianism favors equal access to opportunity with regard to red (marinara) white (alfredo) and green (pesto) sauces on various pasta form factors, and is not guilty of any discrimination with regard to the evolutionary variations on the theme documented in culinary Darwinism.

(Dr. Dawn W.)



The fact that so many scientists are jumping on the FSM bandwagon is actually indicative of the weakness behind the doctrine of their own "religion", that is evolution. All of these PhD's have cited (tongue-in-cheek) examples within the cosmos that support the FSM model.

This precisely illustrates how the "theory" of evolution has become "scientific" fact. Some scientists, when trying to prove their theories, search for facts that support their ideas, while ignoring or dismissing the ones that don't. Some creationists are guilty of the same. The evolution of man, as presented today, is statistically impossible, even over a span of 12 billion years. But why muddy the waters with probability and statistical analysis? The Big Bang and Evolution still don't answer the question, "What existed before planet Earth and our universe?" The ID theory answers the question, but it requires one to have faith in something that cannot be proven or seen by mankind.

The fact is that NONE of the theories that attempt to explain the origins of the universe and mankind can be proven "scientifically", because scientific method requires you to be able to repeat the process. ALL of the "origin" theories require an incredible degree of faith. I feel that all reasonable or widely held theories that attempt to explain the origin of man and the universe should be taught in schools in the name of tolerance and diversity.

Posted 10-11-2005 2:10 PM by Doug Casey