Bobby Henderson - The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

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.

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.