I’m doing a paper on whether or not The Flying Spaghetti Monster should be taught in schools. I’m wondering what your opinion is because I think it’s only fair and even though it is silly it technically makes just as much sense as Intelligent Design.
The claim is not that FSM necessarily makes “just as much sense” as ID but rather that FSM is equally as scientifically grounded as ID. That is, in the context of the science classroom, the claim is that ID provides no more useful scientific knowledge than FSM does.
Yes, but only on Sundaes.
FSM is equally as scientifically grounded as ID. I laughed out loud. How childish.
I think that it makes more sense to teach Creationism than it does to teach Pastafarianism, because many if not most people actually do believe in Creationism, whereas, Pastafarianism was invented just to make fun of Creationism.
But I don’t really think either one should be in schools…not really.
The issue is about the science classroom. Should we teach “junk” that is not science, blurring the idea of what science is? Or should we limit the stuff covered in a science class to what can actually be called science. It’s a little scary how a lot of people don’t seem to get the whole science/not-science thing. To teach good science, a student has to know what science is.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^hear hear
I think in the convuluted and troubled times such as the ones we live in i think it’s important that we simply remember the age-old abbreviation ‘W.W.T.F.S.M.D’, that and to not take life, religion, pain and most of all politics seriously. We’re all going to be blown to pieces by angry people/destroyed by an asteroid/eaten by an infinite reality we cannot grasp as mere humans or just plain choke in an ironic twist of fate on a fortune cookie predicting that very incident. Peace.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re laughing at here. Perhaps you could enlighten me.
I think it’s ok to teach creationism(?) at school and all, but not in science. If you want to teach it, it should be in some sort of philosophy class.
Forrest stands on the ID side of the line that divides this discussion.
He’s suggesting that ID has more scientific ‘grounding’ than the FSM.
He has not been touched by his noodly appendage yet.
We still like him anyway.
Teaching FSM in schools could be dangerous.
If we establish the pattern that we’ll object to something ludicrous (teaching ID as ‘science’) by suggesting something even more (or equally) ludicrous (the fsm, in this case), are we not undermining the validity of our teaching system, the very thing we’re trying to protect?
While I enjoy the fsm as a pop-kulcha phenom (I’ve gotta stop watching WWE…), I’m a little hesitant to take it too seriously.
ID isn’t science and shouldn’t be taught as science.
But we can do better to oppose that suggestion than the fsm.
Noodly appendage notwithstanding.
Now I’m going tosit back and watch a 15 and a 16 year old discuss the concept ‘childish’.
Should be fun.
I don’t believe it is “junk.” But I realize many people do, such as yourself. Honestly, it just depends on the definition of “science,” and “religion.” I think Creation could be called science, and I think Evolution could be called religion, just with more physical evidence.
Creation ought to be taught in schools, or at least presented as a possibility, but not necessarily in Science class.
Agreed…i would absolutely love to take a class on religion, but my school, and probably most high schools, don’t have one because of the constitutional things. So i have to wait to go to college.
I think you’re trying to blur a line where the line is clear.
Science has a pretty clear definition. Each person does not get to conveniently invent her own definition of science so that she can squeeze her own agenda in.
ID/Creationism/FSM clearly DOES NOT fit the definition of science.
Teach ID in Philosophy or Religion classes, where it belongs.
To teach ID in science would be a truely corrupt way to push religious propaganda onto children.
I don’t like to mix pasta and ice-cream.
Laughing outloud may be childish, but it is important for each of us to be in touch with our inner child.
To address what you really meant. Of course FSM is silly. Nobody actually believes that the FSM actually created the universe. However, most people in the world don’t believe what you believe either.
More to the point. ID and FSM (which is basically a variation on ID) both have ZERO scientific merit, and therefore literally are on equal scientific ground. This is true regardless of whether or not a god (or FSM) actually exisits.
What’s the definition of science? 
If lines exist between science and not-science, they are blurry at best. And I think the ID movement is exploiting the blur to its fullest.
So uh… the idea that the complex world and everything in it, not to mention the universe, evolved from some specks of dirt and slime? Said idea supposedly happened millions of years ago, were no one was possibly there to witness it, and there is no current probable evidence of evolution existing? That is scientific?
And if you don’t beleive that particular idea, were DID the earth come from? Monkeys on mars? were did mars come from?
Even though I disagree with you, I understand your point of view.
I deal with these questions by acknowledging the limits of the human mind. Here’s a thought for you. Given true chaos and an infinite amount of time, everything that could possibly happen will happen regardless of how minute the probability.
You ask all good questions. I don’t know the answers. However, when you bring GOD/Intelligent Design into it (For the record, can we simply acknowledge than when people say ID they mean GOD?), you only introduce more questions.
…like, where did the creator come from, and how did he/she/it get these incredible powers of doing/creating pretty much anything imaginable. It’s strange to me that evolution is impossible but the existance on an omnipotent being is not.
…anyways, the nature of these arguements is that I’ll never convince you of anything, and you’ll never convince me of anything, which is fine.
Regardless, the nature of ID is that it cannot be tested nor disproven and is therefore NOT scientific and does not belong in science class.
Sorry about that. It’s junk in a science class, but not necessarily junk if taught in a philosophy or other non-science class.
This makes you one of the people doesn’t have much of a grasp of what science is. I don’t know the absolute definition of science, but I think if you start from the “scientific method” (search it) you get the idea. The basic concept of looking at one fact at a time, and figuring out what things mean without jumping to conclusions. Working from the available facts/evidence only, and not working from an assumed conclusion backward.
This is why Darwin’s theories are only theories. They aren’t proven out. But he reached his theories using the scientific method, not an assumed state of affairs.
A line is never clear…the definition of words always depend on the person who says it and the person who hears it.
That said, I do agree that ID is not necessarily science. But you must remember that there isn’t any 100% proof that evolution is true, just evidence to back it up. There is also evidence to back up much of what is said to have happened in the Bible.
Take this theory of mine…say God took millions of years to create everything he did. It didn’t all “appear” at once. It would make sense he starts out with something very simple, such as one celled organisms, and then works up from that, eventually creating multicellular organisms, etc. In the fossil records, we would see this as evolution, because the animals apparently changed on their own in order to survive in their environment. This is perfectly possible, but why isn’t it possible that they didn’t change on their own, but were changed by God, who was helping them to survive in their environment? You can still call this evolution, because it is. But with God behind it.
All I’m saying is that almost everything we think we know truly is speculation. True knowledge comes in realizing that we don’t know anything.
In a perfect world, a school wouldn’t be forcing children to believe anything. Just showing them 100% of what we think we know, and letting them decide what makes the most sense for themselves. I wouldn’t call this propaganda.