The Gospel of the
FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER
BOBBY HENDERSON

Epigraph

In the beginning was the Word,

and the Word was “Arrrgh!”

—PIRATICUS 13:7

Contents

Cover

Title Page

Epigraph

Disclaimer

A Letter from Bobby Henderson

THE BLUNDERS OF SCIENCE

The Need for Alternative Theories

An American Viewpoint

Toward a New SuperScience

What’s the Matter with Evolution?

An Alternate Vision

FSM vs. ID, an Unlikely Alliance

Communion Test

Unified Spaghetti Theory

More Evidence

Kiwi Birds: Flightless?

EXPLAINING PASTAFARIANISM

A Condensed History of the World

Key Moments in FSM History

Bobby Answers the Big Questions

WWAPD?

The Holy Noodle

A History of Heretics

PROPAGANDA

The Pastafarian Guide to Propaganda

Pamphlets

Swag

Fund-raising

A Guide to the Holidays

Enlightenment Institute

A Final Note from Bobby Henderson and His Staff

Acknowledgments

Illustration Credits

About the Author

Copyright

About the Publisher

Disclaimer

WHILE PASTAFARIANISM IS the only religion based on empirical evidence, it should also be noted that this is a faith-based book. Attentive readers will note numerous holes and contradictions throughout the text; they will even find blatant lies and exaggerations. These have been placed there to test the reader’s faith.

Disclaimer About Midgets¹

OUR RELIGION DOES NOT WISH to discriminate or cause hurt feelings among any group—and this is especially true of the very short, who, if provoked, could easily appear out of nowhere and attack. As a solution, we offer the following:

To prevent angering the little people community, we suggest that this book be placed on the very highest shelf possible.

1. Sometimes referred to as “midgits” or “little people.”

A Letter from Bobby Henderson

DEAR FRIEND,

Welcome to the wonderful world of religion!

These are exciting times in holiness—politicians are crusading, nations are invading, and science¹ is fading. With these changes come religious opportunities the likes of which haven’t been seen since the Reformation … or at least since the persecuted masses first huddled together and shipped off from Old Blighty to that great democratic revival meeting we call the United States of America.

With this in mind, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) invites you to learn a little more about us. We’d like to tell you all about our Heaven, which features a Stripper Factory and a giant Beer Volcano. We’d love to see you dressed in His chosen garb: full Pirate regalia. We want you to enjoy Fridays as His chosen holiday. But first you need to know a little more about us.

What do we stand for?

• All that is good.

What are we against?

• All that isn’t good.

Sounds sweet, right? Of course it’s not that simple, and that’s why we need a book. (Doesn’t every religion have a book?) The Jews have the Bible (The Old Testicle), the Christians have ditto (The New Testicle), the Muslims have the Q-tip or whatever, the Jains have Fun with Dick and Jain, the Sufis have Sufis Up!, the Buddhists have the Bananapada, the Hindus have Ten Little Indians, the Wiccans have The Witches of Eastwick, and so on. If this was a manifesto, a pamphlet, a flyer, an article, or some nut preaching from a street corner, you, fair reader, might perceive FSMism² to be just another two-bit cult. But we’re not a cult (we’re more like a boutique religion at this point), and this is a book that will stand up to any of the others—at least in terms of strict plausibility if not literary finesse and retributive beheadings and disembowelments. The more you read about us the more you’re going to be persuaded that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the true Creator and that FSMism just might be the Best. Religion. Ever.

Go ahead. Try us for thirty days. If you don’t like us, your old religion will most likely take you back. Unless it’s the Jains, whose feelings are easily hurt.

RAmen.

BOBBY HENDERSON

Prophet

1. Also known as the language of the forked tongue.

2. Also known as “Pastafarianism”.

THE BLUNDERS OF SCIENCE

Part of education is to expose people

to different schools of thought.

—GEORGE W. BUSH, closet Pastafarian

The Need for Alternative Theories

SCIENCE IS A SUBJECT IN CRISIS. There’s a dirty little secret that the scientific establishment has been trying to keep under wraps for years: There are many unproven theories that are being taught to people as if they were established fact. But thanks to the heroic efforts of a handful of deep thinkers, the winds of truth are sweeping across the nation.

Consider the theory of Evolution. To their credit, Intelligent Design advocates have successfully argued that their alternative theory deserves as much attention as Evolution, since neither can be considered fact. This is a valid point, but Evolution is hardly the only theory in trouble.

It seems strange that Evolution is singled out as “just a theory” when there are so many basic ideas in science that remain unproven, yet are still taught as fact. The objections to teaching Evolution have only illustrated this point further: Alternative theories must be taught in order to give our young students’ minds a broad foundation. The Intelligent Design proponents make a compelling, and totally legitimate, argument that if a theory has not been proven, then one suggested theory is just as good as another.

Take gravity, for example: the force of attraction between massive particles. We know a great deal about the properties of gravity, yet we know nothing about the cause of the force itself. Why are particles attracted to one other? If we review the literature, we find a lot of material dealing with the properties of gravity, but very little dealing with the underlying cause of this attraction. Until we have a proven answer to this question, it seems irresponsible to instruct students in what is, ultimately, just a theory. However, if we must discuss the theory of gravity at all, then it’s reasonable that all suggested theories should be given equal time, since none have been proven or disproven. Therefore, I formally submit that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is behind this strange and often misunderstood force.

What if it is He, pushing us down with His Noodly Appendages, that causes this force? He is invisible, remember, and is undetectable by current instruments, so in theory it is possible. And the fact that the gravitational powers of the Spaghetti Monster haven’t been disproven makes it all the more likely to be true. We can only guess as to His motives, but it’s logical to assume that if He is going to such trouble, there is a good reason. It could be that He doesn’t want us floating off earth into space, or maybe just that He enjoys touching us—we may never know.¹

And while it’s true that we don’t have any empirical evidence to back up this theory, keep in mind the precedent set by Intelligent Design proponents. Not only is observable, repeatable evidence not required to get an alternative theory included in the curriculum, but simply poking holes in established theory may be enough. In this case, the established theory of gravity makes no mention as to the cause of the force; it merely presents the properties of it. I fully expect, then, that this FSM theory of gravity will be admitted into accepted science with a minimum of apparently unnecessary bureaucratic nonsense, including the peer-review process.

For further evidence of the true cause of gravity—that we are being pushed down by His Noodly Appendages—we need only look at our historical records. The average height of humans two thousand years ago was about five feet three inches for males, compared with an average height of around five feet ten inches for males today. Useless by itself, this information becomes quite important when viewed in terms of worldwide population. Humans, apparently obsessed with shagging, have increased their numbers exponentially over the years. We find, counterintuitively, that a small population correlates with shorter humans, and a larger population correlates with taller humans.² This only makes sense in light of the FSM theory of gravity. With more people on earth today, there are fewer Noodly Appendages to go around, so we each receive less touching—pushing down toward the earth—and thus, with less force downward, we’re taller.

It is evident that early man received much more touching than his modern-day counterparts.

We can fully expect that as the population increases, and we receive less downward pushing by the FSM, we’ll continue to grow in height. Conversely, we can expect that the sudden occurrence of a worldwide plague would cause our average height to decrease. This phenomenon can be verified in historical records. We find that regions undergoing health crises have shorter people—strong evidence that the theory is sound.

No one is saying that the FSM theory of gravity is necessarily true, but at the very least, it’s based on sound science, sound enough to be included in the curriculum with the other nonproven theories. Until the currently taught theory of gravity, known as Newtonism, is proven as fact, alternatives should be taught as well.

The unusually high placement of this prehistoric cave art is attributed to the natural shelter that caves provided from His Noodly Appendages.

1. It would appear that midgets receive the most FSM touching—thus placing them on a pedestal in His eyes.

2. If we are to believe that height is a function of nutrition, as we’re told, then a smaller population with more food available per person should correlate to a taller height. This is not what we find.

An American Viewpoint

A Note from

Ferris P. Longshanks: County Sheriff, School Governor, Concerned Citizen

Honestly, fellow citizens, I don’t understand what all the fuss is about. We’re not saying that Intelligent Design is any more valid than Evolution or any other half-baked theory of creation—all we’re interested in is giving people choices.

Isn’t that what America is all about?

Republican or Democrat

McDonald’s or Burger King

Coke or Pepsi

And here’s another to consider …

The Benevolent Lord Our Savior or

Everlasting Damnation in Hellfire

Whichever side you fall on doesn’t really matter, because we’re all Americans. Still, any real American supports his or her inalienable right to have choices—and lots of ’em. For what are people without choices? Communists! And despite this fact, there are those who would bar the public from having an open and honest discussion about Intelligent Design, a scientific concept that’s so clear and logical as to appeal to Baptist holy men and intellectually discerning Formula One fans alike.

Sometimes I see the hypocrisy and just shake my head.

Granted, these are controversial issues we’re dealing with, and well-reasoned people do disagree on whether life as we know it was created by a benevolent and all-knowing Creator (ID)—or through a random and heartless struggle for dominance, commonly known as survival of the fittest (Evolution).

For the sake of clarity, allow me to use a simple analogy to explain these two very different versions of creation.

Say you want to buy one of those new flatscreen TVs that are so popular these days. According to the opposing theories of ID and Evolution, you might acquire that TV in two very different ways:

1. You could assume, quite fairly, that Intelligent Designers from Sony, Toshiba, and Sharp are actively producing new and affordable forty-two-inch, high-definition flatscreen TVs, which are then boxed and shipped to the nearest Wal-Mart or Circuit City for you to purchase. Or …

2. You could wait several million years for a new flatscreen TV to evolve spontaneously from a “soup” composed of mud, DNA, and spare television parts. Once this happens, you might attempt to drag your new television out of a swamp and back to your house (or more likely, cave) before a stranger comes swinging out of a tree, kills you and your children, then inseminates your wife with his own seed.

As you can see, both theories present potentially dramatic consequences for society. I’m not saying that one scenario is more valid than the other, but I will say that the Intelligent Design option is the first one. In the interest of fairness, I’ll also say that Evolution (or Natural Selection) is the one where your wife gets raped by a man who lives in a tree. Both theories present unique challenges.

When considering the two, ask yourself which makes more sense in your life.

Then ask yourself, Who’s making these arguments, anyway?

ID proponents can boast of several scientists—brave men who are willing to be called upon by name—to represent their views. You’ve seen these pro-ID champions on your televisions (which, we can safely assume, were designed by engineers and bought from a store … further proof). You’ve observed them being viciously attacked by activist judges, the liberal media, and a certain Bobby Henderson. But where are the men of science who speak out in support of Evolution?

A number of scientists have been cited in defense of Evolution, but if we examine the situation more closely we begin to see a disturbing pattern.

Names like Darwin, Einstein, Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, Ernst Meyer—and many other scientists who 95 percent of the country have never heard of—are offered up as men who’ve supported Evolution. Yet you’ve never seen one of these so-called scientists publicly defending their theory. Why?

Answer: Because they’re all dead.

Hmm … coincidence? When the pro-Evolutionary movement has to resort to dead scientists (who are probably a little warm right now, if you get my drift), it makes one wonder how good an argument they actually have. What’s next … bringing back Aristotle (a homosexual) and Ptolemy (forgotten) to argue for a flat earth? Given the pro-Evolutionists’ track record, that can’t be too far away.

Dead.

As I’ve stated, we do see living judges trying to wield their laws in the face of this highly scientific discussion. However, I predict that the well-prepared ID scientists will soon have liberal activist judges quaking in their penny loafers. These judges are much better suited for sanctioning same-sex marriage, and most of them are old and easily confused. Ignore their words and proclamations, for they tire easily.

The liberal media has also chimed in on the subject, only to be reminded that they’re just overpromoted weathermen with good hair, deep voices, and small penises. I don’t have conclusive evidence on this last point, but looking at news anchormen I’m pretty sure it’s true. Don’t worry about the media, they’ll lose interest as soon as forest fire season returns.

Aside from dead scientists, activist judges, and the liberal media, one other man has arisen as a voice for the Evolutionists—if not necessarily to argue for Evolution, then at least to mock the ID movement. We know little about this man, who hails from the Pacific Northwest and calls himself “Bobby Henderson.”

Far be it from me to cast stones, but there are disturbing rumors about him going around. I read on the Internet that he’s not even a scientist. Also, a very reliable source reports that he lied about his military record. I hear that he’s been divorced three times and sleeps in a crypt. Not all of these rumors are verified, but if we’re to let this lying divorcé, who may or may not be a shape-shifting night creature, take a lead on this important debate, I can only pray for the redemption of this country.

In conclusion, I would like to return to my original argument: We the People need choices. We need as many choices as possible, and we can’t allow the leftist cabal of scientists, judges, Bobby Henderson, and the media to take these choices away from us. Write to your congressmen and demand that ID be taught in schools. Write to your religious leaders and demand that they write to your congressmen.

If we don’t act now, I fear the day will come when judges and the media are free to operate with little regard for the tempering hand of public outrage. Laws will be passed and upheld, and only judges will be able to rule on them. The media will report the news without threat of legal action. To put it bluntly, the god-hating communists will have finally won.

I wonder if they’ll appoint Bobby Henderson to be their dictator.

Toward a New SuperScience

WE ARE ENTERING INTO AN EXCITING TIME, when no longer will science be limited to natural explanations. Who is to say that there aren’t supernatural forces—magic, some might call it—at work, controlling events around us? Propelled by popular opinion and local government, science is quickly becoming receptive to all logical theories, natural and supernatural alike. Not since the Middle Ages have we seen such open-minded science policy.

What is science, really? Some might call it the observational, descriptive, experimental, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. And so, not surprisingly, there are a few who argue that supernatural theories have no place in science, since they make no testable claims about the world. But that idea is a little shortsighted. Science is also a collection of tools whose purpose is to enable mankind to solve problems. In this sense, supernatural—or magic, metaphysical, not real, what have you—theories have the potential to be just as helpful, if not more helpful, than the standard natural-only science we’ve used for the last two hundred years.

Extending the science tool metaphor further, shouldn’t we endeavor to give scientists the largest collection of tools possible? No one is saying that they have to apply a supernatural explanation to any particular phenomenon, only that the supernatural be available if nothing else works, or if it is convenient for deceptive political purposes. And remember, this is not a radical new idea. In terms of years in use, supernatural science—SuperScience, if you will—has the edge on conventional science. Conventional, or empirical, science has been in use for only a few hundred years. Obviously there must be a reason supernatural science lasted so long, before this empirical-science fad began. Could it be that supernatural science is more productive than empirical science?

Consider the discovery and development of new land, an important scientific pursuit by anyone’s standard. If we compare a period of time in which supernatural science was the norm—say the years A.D. 1400¹ to 1600, to a period of time in which empirical science was preferred—say the years 1800 to 2000—we can get a clear picture of just how detrimental empirical science can be.

Here, empirical science comes up short even with every technological advantage it possesses. Even with satellite imagery and GPS navigation, scientists bound by the chains of empiricism have been unable to discover even a paltry 3 percent of the amount of new land that their supernatural-science counterparts found in an equal period of time. Scientists and explorers in the years 1400–1600 had few maps, only a compass, cross-staff, or astrolabe for navigation, and no motorized transportation. Yet even with these setbacks, they still managed to discover more than 14 million square kilometers of new, developable land. Clearly their openness to supernatural forces had something to do with their success, and we can only guess that they were guided to these newfound lands by some creature—most likely the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as historical art suggests.

SUPERNATURAL SCIENCE

Years 1400–1600

14.5 million sq km

EMPIRICAL SCIENCE

Years 1800–2000

0.3 million sq km

It’s only logical to assume that returning to balanced methods of science—natural theories and supernatural theories both—would allow us to find more land, something we greatly need for our growing population. More land means more resources, and more resources means fewer starving children. I can safely say, then, that anyone against the inclusion of supernatural theories into science wants children to starve. Such people obviously have no place in policymaking, and so I suggest that they get no say on the issue.

The Italian explorer Christopher Columbus was guided by a Higher Power.

Next, we’ll look at medicine. It might seem crazy to claim that medicine was superior in the Middle Ages—when science included the supernatural—than it is today—being now limited to the study of natural phenomena—but let’s take a closer look. Medieval medicine was dominated by religion, and yes, sickness was generally thought to be punishment for sins, and so treatment then consisted mainly of prayer. But let’s not forget about the “antiquated” medical procedures that were ultimately so successful as to render them unnecessary today.

Bloodletting, the removal of considerable amounts of blood from a patient’s body, is considered heinous by today’s supposedly superior doctors, but who is to say that the procedure didn’t do more good than modern medicine? Medical texts from the Middle Ages—anyone with even a moderate understanding of Latin can read them, and we have no reason to doubt their validity—tell us that many ailments, from headaches to cancer, are the result of evil spirits who are angry with us. We now know, of course, that there are many causes for these ailments, not just spirits at work, but it’s clear from the texts that they were a very significant cause of sickness—one that does not exist today, because bloodletting worked so well as to defeat these sickness spirits completely, much the same way polio was cured with high doses of vitamin C. To those who disagree, let me ask you: When was the last time you suffered a demon-induced fever?

But there are more diseases out there, and it’s apparent that medical science, equipped with only modern methods, cannot defeat them all. Why not, then, give these doctors and scientists more tools and the flexibility to consider supernatural causes as well as natural ones? Who knows what other ailments, even non-demon-induced ones, might be cured with a simple bloodletting or application of leeches? We’ll never know until we try.

And while it’s true that many people believe in the power of prayer to cure disease, there’s never been any verifiable evidence to support the practice. That’s not to say it’s not possible—it certainly is possible that prayer aids in healing—but it could very well be that these prayers are being applied in a nonoptimal fashion, thus explaining the lack of evidence for their effectiveness. The truth is we don’t know because current scientific methods and religious sensitivities don’t allow this type of study. What if those praying are simply praying to the wrong God, or offending Him somehow? What if, by the wearing of a simple eye patch or Pirate bandanna, those praying might have their prayers answered by the FSM?

History is full of examples of supernatural events, and unless we are saying that we’re somehow more intelligent and educated, better equipped to understand unexplained events today than we were five hundred years ago, then we must accept the explanations given to these events by those who witnessed them. Witches, for example, existed in such quantity and caused so much trouble that it was necessary to hunt them down and burn them in the tens of thousands. Here it is, the twenty-first century, hundreds of years later, plenty of time for the population of witches to have grown exponentially, yet they are decidedly less of a problem now than they were half a millennia ago. I have never even seen a witch, let alone felt the need to burn one to death. We can conclude, then, that our forefathers, equipped with the knowledge that supernatural explanations were reasonable, rounded up all the witches in existence and took care of them.

The other possibility is that there are witches out there, hiding somewhere, plotting their revenge, liberally applying fireproofing compounds to themselves. And someday they may reappear and start causing trouble. And then what will our high and mighty scientists do? Throw calculators at them? Witches eat calculators. The scientific community will be helpless to defeat the threat of these witches, offering only “logical” and “reasoned” explanations for the horrible events the witches are magically inflicting on us.

We tend to exalt our rigid empirical methods and technological advances, almost as if we’re proud of what we’ve accomplished with them, but when the record clearly shows that supernatural, nonempirical science produces these kinds of results—the discovery of new lands, the elimination of demon-inducing illnesses, and the extinction of witches—it’s time to rethink our methods and return to what gave us real results.

Witch eating a calculator.

The biggest irony is that the arguments given against the inclusion of supernatural theories in the realm of accepted science actually show clearly that supernatural theories are legit fields of scientific study. No one is saying that empirical, natural-only science and supernatural science can’t live side by side. They can, and in fact, they must. Intelligent design may shun natural explanations for phenomena, but FSMism makes use of both the natural and the supernatural equally.

FSMISM

INTELLIGENT DESIGN

1. Al dente.

What’s the Matter with Evolution?

Highlighting the Problem

WE HEAR A LOT ABOUT EVOLUTION these days. Scientists seem to have embraced the subject as though it were the Second Coming of … well … science. But where has it got us? Are we to believe that just because we’re descended from a common ancestor shared with monkeys, dogs, or whatever, that we understand our situation on this earth any better than we would without Evolution to guide us? Is Evolution going to somehow make my life more satisfying? Can Evolution put food on my table? Will it save the earth from global warming?

The answer to all of the above is a big No. And why is that? Because Evolution is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine. Sure, scientists while away their days trying to devise this or that proof to show that Evolution is a credible idea, but as long as it’s just a theory, no one in the real world is going to take it seriously. So I’ve decided to do some debunking of my own to show the world that the big, bad scientists aren’t “all that,” as the kids like to say.

What is Evolution but the gradual change of species over a lengthy period of time as a result of various internal and external selective pressures? My grandfather, who is as old as dirt, has been through that. According to early lithographs, he was quite a looker in his day, but now, a century later, after years of hard drinking and working in the mines, he has no hair and looks like shit. Could Evolution just mean growing old? I posed this question to a scientist friend who explained that the change has to take place over many generations. You’d think the Evolutionists would have stated that right out front, and I admit that I stand corrected. But Evolution still sounds a lot like growing old to me, and I can’t help thinking that this is where the Evolutionary scientists first got their wacky ideas.

Having cleared up this common confusion, let us move on to the proposed selective force of Evolution—namely, Natural Selection. What on Earth is this supposed to mean? Is there unnatural selection? And who’s doing the selecting? Neither of these questions could be answered by my scientist friend, and so I have been forced to ditch my now former friend and perform my own research. What follows is, to the best of my ability, what I’ve been able to uncover regarding Evolution and Natural Selection.

A Closer Examination of Natural Selection

Apparently, there are not one but two forms of selection. They are Natural Selection and sexual selection. I’ll let you mull over the second “sexy” form of selection for a minute, at least until I’ve torn the first one to shreds.

According to the neo-Darwinists, most Evolutionary change is attributable to Natural Selection, meaning that individuals carrying genes that are better suited to their environment will leave more offspring than individuals carrying genes that make them less adaptive. Over time, these more adaptive traits will proliferate, altering the genetic composition of the overall population, since individuals with better “fitness”¹ pass more of their genes into the next generation. It is this process, scientists will tell you, that produced the platypus, the penguin, and the poodle—leading us to conclude that scientists are definitely full of shit. If someone can explain to me the adaptive traits of the “duck-bill,” then they can certainly tell me why the platypus is the only mammal on the planet that has one? Are platypii (-pusses … who knows?) concerned with ingratiating themselves into local duck populations? Do they think that they’re funny? Why do they have a bill?

I’ll take it easy on the scientists regarding the platypus, because obviously it’s a tough one, but I’m sure there are several hundred scientists right now earning their tenure in a pointless search for the Evolutionary significance of this ridiculous creature. I’ll close on the platypus by stating an alternative theory that I’ve come up with: the Flying Spaghetti Monster made the platypus because, unlike scientists, He has a sense of humor. It’s an unlikely sign from God—and until someone can prove me wrong, that’s my theory.

I will next turn to more ordinary and boring examples of Natural Selection, which I will then proceed to slice to ribbons. Let us look at the fascinating case of bacteria. It is well known that antibiotics are used to cure various illnesses caused by bacteria, and it is equally well known that most bacteria (for example, staphylococci)² eventually develop immunity to these antibiotics. Looking a little closer at the case of staphylococci, we find that, in 1929, Sir Alexander Fleming³ first observed the bacterium staphylococci to experience inhibition on an agar plate contaminated by a penicillium⁴ mold. Sir Alexander Fleming, or “F-Man” as the queen liked to call him, isolated the penicillium to make penicillin, which then went on to be known as a wonder drug for many diseases, mainly VD. But gradually penicillin in its natural form became useless. Scientists will tell you that the bacterium—which replicates faster than a chinchilla in a Cialis factory—eventually developed a strain of itself that was resistant to naturally formed penicillin, and that the process of Natural Selection caused this resistant strain to propagate in nature. This is an outright lie, which I will decimate momentarily.

If we look at bacteria that grow resistant to antibiotics, insects that grow resistant to DDT, or even HIV that grows resistant to antiviral drugs, we see a fascinating correlation between “Natural Selection” and “resistance.” But what are we really seeing here? I submit that they’re not changing their genetic makeup, they’re changing their minds. In short, they’re getting smarter. If I go to your house and you feed me a shit sandwich two days in a row, I’m having lunch at McDonald’s on the third day. It’s that simple. Don’t let the scientists, with their big phallic bacterial names, tell you anything different. They’re not as smart as they pretend to be, no matter how much they try to demean so-called lower life forms.

One other example of Natural Selection should just about put this puppy to bed. Scientists have pointed to “artificial selection” to show that humans, by providing their own specific set of selective forces, can mimic the forces of nature. We see this over and over again in the actions of “breeders,” who purportedly have wrought immense changes in plants and animals. We can look to the various breeds of dogs as an example, where claims are made that all dog species originated from one common source: the ancestral wolf. From this ferocious beast we are expected to believe that a diverse assortment of species was created by man himself—such four-legged brutes as the Chihuahua, the dachshund, the poodle, and the bulldog—all of which have been with us since time immemorial. This breeding “myth” appears to be a form of propaganda, possibly put forth by anti–Intelligent Design campaigners, although I’ll save any conversation about Intelligent Design for a later chapter. How can we believe such claims about “man’s best friend” when it is obvious to the common observer that every breed has been put on this planet to serve a purpose. I, for one, would point to the FSM as the creator of dogs, although there is valid evidence that God (if he is ever proven to exist) might have had a hand in their creation. After all, aren’t Alsatians meant to provide us with protection, maybe even from their own “forefathers,” the wolf?⁵ Weren’t poodles and Chihuahuas put on this earth to make us feel better about ourselves? There can be little doubt that an intelligent creator put all the species on earth to serve man. And Evolution wasn’t even properly invented until the late 1800s. Is that enough time to get a Labrador retriever from a dire wolf? I think not.

If you don’t buy this argument, consider this one last example, which in this case regards plant species. If we look at domestic cabbage, broccoli, kale, cauliflower, and brussels sprouts, are we to claim, even if they did originate from a common ancient wild cabbage, that selection, be it natural, artificial, whatever, could not have done better over the last few thousand years? The answer is written in the squinched-up face of every child with a brussels sprout in his or her mouth. Yet another strike against Evolution.

From Pirates to People

Any discussion of Evolution will eventually lead us to ourselves. Humans have been around for as long as we can remember, and yet the Evolutionists will tell you that we weren’t. They will tell you that humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor some five million years ago, and that we “diverged” from that common ancestor and eventually invented the space shuttle while chimpanzees were only able to invent “the stick.” To support this thesis, scientists tell us that we share 95 percent of our DNA with chimpanzees, and yet we share 99.9 percent of our DNA with Pirates.⁶ I ask you, who is the more likely common ancestor? And are the Pirates not the Chosen People of the FSM? Why do we spend so much time talking about something that didn’t happen, while the FSM is dangling His Noodly Appendage right in front of our faces?

Not in a million years …!

But I shall persevere just a little further, and I shall examine the human body—specifically, I will examine organs that have been deemed “vestigial,” or useless, as a result of losing their function over millennia of Evolution.

Wisdom Teeth

Fallacy: Emerging in adulthood, these teeth are thought to have served as extra grinding surfaces for early man, who, before the advent of proper dental care, would most likely have lost many of his teeth by his mid-twenties.⁷

Fact: It is common knowledge that our Pirate ancestors ate a diet much rougher and more manly than our diets today. Also, they tended to carry their knives set deep in the back of their mouths.⁸ It is logical, then, that they’d need extra teeth.

A more credible theory.

Male Nipples

Fallacy: Scientists believe that all humans had breasts—or “dugs”—back in the Stone Age.

Fact: Male nipples were used by Pirates as portable weather stations. With their nipples they were able to determine the direction of the trade winds and, depending on stiffness, how cold it was outside.

Goose Bumps

Fallacy: Evolutionary propaganda would have you believe that goose bumps are an atavistic, now useless response to distress—be it emotional or weather-related—that was once meant to raise the hair on our early forefathers, causing them to appear larger and scarier.

Fact: Goose bumps are a cleverly disguised feature that allowed for increased buoyancy once a Pirate hit cold water. By simply appearing, they raised the surface area, thus increasing buoyancy. This made Pirates float better—something that was very useful to our ancestors, as they were sometimes without boats. Naturally, goose bumps seem to be a vestigial reflex, but it’s really society that has changed.

Appendix

Fallacy: This is a remnant of an internal pouch used to ferment the hard-to-digest plant diets of our ancestors.

Fact: The appendix was a clever internal pouch utilized for hiding a Pirate’s gold. It is also the inspiration for the saying “cough it up,” which Pirates would demand of defeated Pirates once they’d boarded their ships.

Tailbone

Fallacy: Evolutionists claim that the tailbone, or coccyx, which has no documented use, is an unusual remnant of a larger bone growth that might once have formed an ancestral tail, homologous to the functional tails of other primates.

Fact: Humans with tails … are scientists high? Couldn’t the coccyx have served other purposes? I have carefully researched this issue, and have compared the coccyx to other unusual bone growths in animals—and the literature has led me to a single, overriding conclusion. Lots of animals have horns on their heads, and these aren’t thought to be the remnants of larger bone growth, probably because, unlike the coccyx, horns serve a purpose today. But what if the original purpose of the coccyx has simply been rendered useless by today’s culture? If you examine the coccyx closely you will see that this bony growth is very similar, when you think about it, to a horn, which is the structure used by many animals for fighting. I submit, then, that the coccyx is not a vestige of an ancestral tail but rather an effective, albeit strangely placed, defense and fighting mechanism.

I imagine that two opponents, fighting over women or choice cave real estate, would have run backward at each other—their asses outstretched, much the way elk fight with their horns. I have termed this ass-fighting. This makes sense, if you think about it, as it would leave their hands free to carry whatever they needed—most likely food or rocks.

As further evidence that the coccyx is a fighting feature, and that some knowledge of its use has survived culturally through the years, consider how quickly someone will run away from you if you run at them backward, ass first. I suggest that those who doubt this hypothesis put it to the test, and attempt to ram their ass into everyone they see for the next few days.⁹ I feel confident that most, if not all, of these targets will at the very least be afraid. I see no other explanation for why this would occur, other than that we know, subconsciously, that the coccyx is a weapon, not a vestigial tail.

One Other Vestigial Feature

Fallacy: The human genome provides evidence that we humans were not created ex nihilo,¹⁰ but instead had to evolve systematically, just like all the other animals. As evidence, scientists point to lots of nonfunctional DNA, including many inactive “pseudo genes” that were functional in some of our ancestors but aren’t today. One example that is often cited is the case of vitamin C synthesis. While all primates, including humans, carry the gene responsible for synthesizing vitamin C, that gene is inactive in all members of the primate family but one: man. Scientists point to this as evidence of our shared lineage, although I can’t figure out why.

Fact: Pirates, our ancestors, lived in the tropics and ate a lot of fruit.

Evolution Gets Sexy

Finally, I will address “sexual selection,” which I promised some time earlier. The basic concept behind sexual selection is that one gender of the species, usually the female, actively chooses members of the opposite sex to copulate with,¹¹ based on certain criteria, thus placing a selective pressure on the species as a whole. Sexual selection explains the bright foliage of male birds, the impressive ritualistic duels among male rams, deer, elk, and other ungulates,¹² and the high percentage of Hummers being driven by short, ugly men. In short, sexual selection depends on the success of certain individuals over others of the same sex, while Natural Selection is non-gender specific. In the interest of modernity, I move that Congress pass a bill outlawing this backward and sexist practice.

The Spaghedeity

While I have essentially decimated the theory of Evolution throughout these pages, it is important to state that a great deal of credible Evolutionary evidence does exist. No one can dispute the fossil record, which shows a clear and gradual transformation of species over time (albeit with frustrating gaps—and I ask you, Who could have put them there?). And there do indeed appear to be selective forces at work in the world, for instance when drunks walk out onto the road and are hit by cars.¹³

We are not saying that Evolution can’t exist, only that it is guided by His Noodly Appendage. And our Spaghedeity is extremely modest. For some reason, He went through a great deal of trouble to make us believe that Evolution is true—masking the prominent role of Pirates in our origins, making monkeys seem more important than they really are, generally keeping behind the scenes and out of the spotlight.

In spite of His low profile, though, let no one doubt that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not only a groundbreaking religion, but is also supported by hard science, making it probably the most unquestionably true theory ever put forth in the history of mankind. To make my point, I will turn to the modern-day problem of global warming.

Pirates, as you know, are His Chosen People. Yet their numbers have been shrinking ever since the 1800s. Consequently, we find that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct result of the shrinking number of Pirates. To illustrate this fact, I have included the well-known graph from a recent study (below).

As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between Pirates and global temperature. But of course not all correlations are causal. For example, take a look at this seeming correlation regarding ID proponents:

It would appear that the people behind ID have a lower intelligence quotient than the general population—and a significantly lower IQ than scientists, who overwhelmingly reject the idea of Intelligent Design.¹⁴

GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE vs. NUMBER OF PIRATES

I, for one, tend to believe this to be merely a strange coincidence, and that ID believers are not necessarily as retarded as the data would suggest. It is entirely likely that the Flying Spaghetti Monster put this coincidence in place in order to confuse us further as to our true origins. We may never know.

FSM vs. Other Religions

A conversation about Intelligent Design proponents, no matter how brief and specious, inevitably leads us to a discussion about God and religion. It is important to state up front that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a peaceful religion—probably the most peaceful of them all. But can we prove that? In order to explore our proposition, let us look at religion and violence throughout history, particularly with regard to war and death.

SCATTER PLOT FOR BELIEF IN ID

Christianity appears to be the Rambo of religions, with the Crusades, the Inquisition, various bloody rebellions, the Conquistadors … the list seems nearly endless. Suffice it to say that when Jesus Christ stated, in his bewitching and Yoda-like manner, “But those enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me,”¹⁵ people took him pretty literally. The Jews¹⁶ and the Muslims haven’t done so well for themselves either, and are still duking it out. We even find Buddhists fighting in China. So, glossing over the evidence, we find that religion can be quite scary and violent. On the other hand, there’s absolutely no evidence of any deaths from FSMism, which seems to imply that it has the lowest death rate. And if that is true, then this is strong evidence that FSMism is the most peaceful religion.

Now take a look at how much criticism of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and the other religions there is. People can’t seem to decide on the simple things, like which holy book to follow, let alone whether any of it is true. There are arguments between friends and countries, tens of thousands of books on the various religions, all poking holes, jibbering about which god to worship (Hinduism), jabbering about which ancient prophet’s cousin to support (Islam). It’s a mess. And yet we find that exactly, count them, zero books have been written to poke holes in the theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There isn’t even any academic criticism, only academic support—and academics love to argue about everything. All this we take as evidence that FSMism is probably true.

Finally, we find that the religions tend to put a lot of stock in “dogma,” which is a way of saying they are correct beyond all doubt. Even the most devout of the Pastafarians will scratch their heads and nervously readjust their eye patches at this idea. Dogma implies an absolute belief in something, and in order for people to have an absolute belief in anything, they’d basically have to be omniscient.¹⁷ We have a different approach: FSM believers reject dogma. Which is not to say that we don’t believe we’re right. Obviously, we do. We simply reserve the right to change our beliefs based on new evidence or greater understanding of old evidence. Our rejection of dogma is so strong that we leave open the possibility that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster at all. So, in a sense, you could say that we’re extremely open-minded—we could change our minds someday. All we ask is proof of His nonexistence.

The fossil record is loaded with evidence of His existence. You just have to know where to look.

1. “Fitness” regards how well individuals “fit” in their environment.

2. Most scientists are perverted and use Latinate terms to hide this fact. Translated into English, staphylococci means “Power Penis.”

3. No relation to Sir Elton John.

4. Meaning “many tiny penises.”

5. See various stories by Jack London.

6. I find it suspicious that biology textbooks rarely mention this fact.

7. Wisdom teeth appear to still serve a useful function in parts of the Deep South.

8. See Robert Louis Stevenson’s Treasure Island.

9. Women are not advised to try this in the company of perverted men.

10. Nihilos were an early Roman snack food, an early predecessor to Doritos. Essentially, this term translates to “from Doritos.”

11. Bonk.

12. Rams, deer, elk, etc.

13. Also, George W. Bush bears a striking resemblance to a chimpanzee.

14. Henderson, 2005.

15. Luke 19:27.

16. Who managed to knock off Jesus, if you believe some people.

17. Which would be cool, but would probably also make you a little uncomfortable around other people.

An Alternate Vision

A Note from

Peter J. Snodgrass, Ph.D.,

and the Imam Perez Jaffari

RE: UD in a

Not-So-Intelligent World

When confronted with the grim realities of war, famine, pestilence, diarrhea, and Celine Dion, it is not entirely surprising that one might be led to consider that our Creator, while all-powerful, might not have proven Himself to be completely infallible.

While there can be no doubt that the source of creation was indeed the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM), and that He did leave mysterious and ambiguous clues to throw us off track,¹ we submit that the FSM was careless, cruel, drunk, or even high when he first laid down the template for life as we know it. How else to explain the extinction of 99.9 percent of all plant and animal species ever to exist on earth? How else to explain the release of not one, but two Deuce Bigalow films?

Without question, we are members of a small and limited minority of scientists and religious leaders who deign to question the Creator’s wisdom in allowing for life-threatening volcanoes, tsunamis, hurricanes, twisters, and plastic surgery gone bad, but as the evidence accumulates, we can only posit one undeniable theory:

The FSM, our Creator, isn’t very bright.

Undoubtedly, this statement represents a subtle paradigm shift, especially when juxtaposed against the common perception of a benevolent, all-knowing Creator, but innumerable examples of questionable judgment do exist. Something is certainly rotten in Denmark when Ben Affleck is allowed to bed both J. Lo and that hottie from Alias, while Matt Damon is forced to date his own assistant. We cry foul!

So we hereby state our belief that the universe is a result of “UNINTELLIGENT DESIGN” (UD).

Casting social science aside, we can turn to the physical sciences to support our claims.² Why doesn’t the Benevolent and Noodly Master get to work and start eradicating mass poverty, cancer, global warming, and nuclear proliferation? Is He too busy trying to rekindle the low-carb diet craze?

While this treatise might not appear to meet the normal requirements of an academic paper, let it be said that such was not even our intention. This is a work composed by a scientist and a religious leader. If science and religion are to live side by side in mutual nonjudgment, there needs to be a new model for dialogue, one that takes into account the interests of both sides. Religious people don’t really “do” numbers. Scientists can’t get dates and don’t have a clue what real people think. By collecting and presenting a different kind of data, we aim to appeal to “Bible thumpers” and “brainiacs” alike. Just getting those epithets out on the table can make a difference.

In fact, we feel better already. Too many resources are being wasted in trying to prove intelligence in all we see around us. Wouldn’t it be better just to throw in the towel, call a spade a spade, and admit that our Creator is a dumbass?

Examples of Unintelligent Design

1. THE DODO. Portuguese sailors, who marveled at this bird’s trusting and docile nature, gave it the name dodo, meaning “simpleton.” Unfortunately, the dodo was unable to compete in a rapidly changing environment,³ and the bird soon went the way of the Portuguese sailor.

2. THE PASSENGER PIGEON. Once the most populous bird in North America, the passenger pigeon’s demise can be traced back to the early 1900s and McDonald’s highly popular but short-lived “McPidgin Sandwich.”

3. THE IRISH ELK. Neither exclusively Irish nor an elk (it was really a large deer), the male of this species attracted mates based on the size of its antlers: the larger the antlers, the more attractive the male. As the selective pressures for a “nice rack” increased, the head of the male grew so overburdened that the males began to fall easy prey to the large predators⁴ that were moving into northern Europe at the time. All the less impressive males just drank themselves to death.

4. THE LLAMA. The typical llama is unable to produce milk or eggs, and many people can’t even spell its name.

5. THE APPENDIX. Might once have had value but is now completely useless.⁵ No one really knows why it remains, although some have been found to hold gold coins.

6. RELIGIOUS WARFARE. Someone has described religious warfare as “killing people over who has the best invisible friend.” We tend to agree.

7. DISCO. Scientists are still split on this dance craze, but the FSM doesn’t like it, so it goes on the list.

8. THE MACARENA. True fact: invented by a guy named Retardo.

9. JAR JAR BINKS. Hesa just stupid.

10. THE DUCK-BILLED PLATYPUS. Q. What creator combines a duck with a muskrat? A. Not an intelligent one.

Aboriginal children killed the dodo.

1. For instance, making Evolution seem plausible.

2. The Patel Paradox: Dr. S. Patel, Ph.D., notes that the Hubble constant reveals a universe that is expanding at a rate both measurable and significant. In spite of that fact, he still can’t find a parking space.

3. Possibly caused by an early aboriginal dot.com boom.

4. Sabre-toothed tigers, Germans, etc.

5. This includes its presence in book form.

FSM vs. ID, an Unlikely Alliance

The Controversy: Peer Review

PEOPLE ARE PLAYING POLITICS with science.

Supporters of Intelligent Design, or ID, have been targeting education officials and public policy makers in a blatant attempt to have their views taught to our nation’s students as “science.” Because 99 percent of the scientific community supports the theory of Evolution, ostensibly rejecting ID in the process, we find ID proponents arguing that their beliefs should be taken directly to the public—thus letting disorientated high school biology students decide the issue once and for all.¹

This contrasts significantly with conventional scientific methods, where researchers are required to submit their work for review by fellow scientists in their particular field—a process known as “peer review.” Such a system serves to weed out unacceptable theories, thus keeping science pure and permanently safe from controversy. But ask yourself this question: While “peer review” sounds like a good idea, is turning to one’s peers for their opinions not the wrong way to go? Is it not the same as a woman asking her boyfriend, “Do I look fat in this blouse/dress/parka?” Regardless of the item of clothing being worn, the answer is a resounding “no, you look great” in 99.99 percent of all test cases.² As a consequence, we argue that the highly secretive “peer review” system is unfairly hardwired to reinforce the limited viewpoints of scientists and their close friends.³

NATIONWIDE POLL OF A CROSS SECTION OF “AVERAGE” HIGH SCHOOL BIOLOGY STUDENTS

What is your opinion of Evolution?

“Cool” | 7 percent
“Awesome” | 8 percent
“Stupid” | 14 percent
“Is that a new band?” | 8 percent
Didn’t have a #2 pencil | 62 percent
Asleep | 1 percent

If the scientists had their way, we wouldn’t be discussing ID at all today. In fact, you’d have to go all the way back to the Salem witch trials before you’d find such close-mindedness and raw hatred for other people’s views.⁴ But brave school board members—nearly all of whom have no scientific background and, in some cases, very little education—have declared the current system to be unfair. With the courage of witches, they have dared to step forward and redefine science, and we of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster have decided to stand by them.

And so we throw our hats into the ring:

We have uncovered remarkable evidence suggesting that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is behind the theory of Intelligent Design, deftly manipulating the debate with His Noodly Appendage.

If Not Him, Then Who?

If we take the Intelligent Design proponents at their word—that ID is not religious in nature but simply a scientific alternative to Evolution—then the religious background of the proponents of ID should closely mirror that of the general public. However, when we look at the data, we do not see the expected result. Instead, we find that 95 percent of leading ID proponents are evangelical Christians, or ECs. Given that evangelical Christians do not even attain such high densities in the South, we estimate that there is a .001 percent chance of this nearly 1:1 ratio of IDs to ECs occurring naturally. Again, accepting the claim that ID is a science and not a religion, the only other inference we can draw is a supernatural one.

ID proponents are extremely careful to state their arguments in secular language, avoiding calls by many to declare the identity of the designer. When one looks at ID it is clear that a creator must be present; however, the ID proponents are tight-lipped as to who that creator might be. If it’s a Christian God, why not mention it? You’d think this would be important enough to at least be stated somewhere. This leads us to determine that the designer is not a Christian God. But if that’s the case, then who is behind the controversy?

Clearly, the FSM is behind it. Who else could influence such a uniformly religious group of people to subscribe to the non-Christian, nonreligious theory of ID? The FSM is notorious for just this type of mischievous intervention, and thus it can only be concluded that the FSM is behind the ID movement, which makes sense when you think about it.

Irrefutable Proof

Some of the greatest thinkers of all time have dedicated their lives to proving the existence of God. Thomas Aquinas gave it his best shot, and his writings have been confusing college freshmen ever since. Kurt Gödel used a proof that appears to have employed hieroglyphics; unfortunately, no one can read hieroglyphics anymore, so we don’t know if he was successful. Suffice it to say, no one has managed to prove the existence of God, and as a result, ID doesn’t seem to be provable either.

Gödel’s proof of God: completely unreadable.

And that’s what we find in the record. Since ID offers no hypotheses of its own, which is a requirement of science, it cannot be considered a scientific theory unless we can prove the existence of God.⁵ So it turns out that the scientific community has good reason to be skeptical of the theory of Intelligent Design. But ID proponents rightfully claim error or conspiracy on the part of scientists. And here’s the hitch: There is no conspiracy … but there is a consPiracy.

The truth is that the FSM is hidden all around us. And He’s left clues like Italian-style bread crumbs to show us the path to His Eternal Noodliness. He’s in our language—every time someone tells you to use your “noodle” they’re unknowingly directing you to turn to Him for guidance. And whenever someone talks about a “consPiracy,” they’re just invoking the mischievous nature of Him and His Chosen People, the Pirates.

But language alone isn’t undeniable proof for those skeptical scientists.⁶ We need cold, hard facts. To begin, we will look at how the Evolutionary scientists try to pick apart the work of ID scientists, men like Michael J. Behe, who argues in his seminal and frequently incoherent tome, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, the concept of irreducible complexity. Somewhere toward the beginning, Behe makes the following damning statement: “By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.”⁷ He then goes on to talk about “Evolutionary mechanisms” and “the emergence of some complex biochemical cellular systems” and other things that, let’s face it, sound like mumbo jumbo to laymen and high school biology students.⁸ But the point is that this is well-thought-out science, nearly irrefutable proof that Behe can talk like a scientist. While the Evolutionists respond with computer simulations demonstrating that it is possible for irreducible complexity to evolve naturally, I would note that it is also possible for me to use my computer to lead an entire army of samurai warriors against the greatest generals of their day. Call it a wash.

Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.

Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».

Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.

Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.